The Priest and the Atheist

[Deborah_mac]

BTW Deborah is me. I changed emails when I started University studies.
I didn't think I would still be a member lol

[waynepii]

Then how do bees manage to keep the hive running, food being brought in, the queen tended to, etc? Social animals generally have built-in behaviors that set "rules" for interpersonal relations. Science says these behaviors evolved to benefit the social group, you probably say they were designed in. Either way, it's built-in and except for the psychopaths among us needs only a little training during early childhood to reinforce and fine-tune. It doesn't require formal religion to operate.

Wayne, you are continuiing to miss my point. If altruism ceased to be an advantage to bees, then it would stop. Those are the rules. Altruism is built in only so long as those traits remain advantageous.

Quite possibly. But a bee is unable to survive without its hive. More to the point, the queen which is the only member of the hive which can breed, is totally dependent on the hive. A hive only survives thru the "altruism" of ts members.

In the model of of human evolution, altruism served and currently continues to serve as an advantage. But there is inherently NO VALUE to the altruism in and of themselves, only so far as to increase fitness or decrease fitness. YOu can have no say over the ugliness of rape if suddenly rape provides an advantage. Now while viewing rape as ugly DOES currently provide an advantage, this does not make the alternative view of rape being morally right inherently wrong. It is neutral in its inherent rightness or wrongness. We are under the whims of our genes and if the genes that are selected lead to "ugliness" and evil being more advantageous, then they will increase in the population.

Genes and upbringing

I won't go into the brutality, rape, and murder in the name of God (Crusades, Spanish conquest of South America, Inquisition, ... ).

Wayne, this argument does not address the point over the worldview. Mankind has done tremendous atrocites. Of course those atrocities existed. This does not invalidate the point I am making. Mankind is depraved; we are capable of great evils, both in the name of religion and without. I can look back at those and explain them according to my worldview and understand the reason and source of the evil involved. What moral imperative allows you to declare those activites wrong?

Would I like having my property stolen? My home burned? My wife and daughter raped (or myself, were I female)? My family killed? Myself and/or my family enslaved? .... Let's see, these are tough questions, well I'll guess I'll pass on 'em all, thanks. Ergo, I wouldn't do any of them to anyone else, and would (and have actually - civil rights protests in the '60s) actively act to prevent them from happening to others.

Atheism has no moral imperative other than the current social decisions. The fact that you find rape morally disgusting is simply up to the whims of the genes of the population invovled. You say that other than the occasional psychopath, everybody tends to agree. But that is simply according to what genes provide the current selective advantage. Morality, according to atheism, is just the result of selective advantage. And so what does define beauty? Or makes one persons morality inherently more right than anothers? What right have you to call that person a psychopath? you just happen to be on the side that your genes match the selective advantage. Woe to the psychopath, then!! Just like the white pepper moth, they suffer under the selective pressures of the rest of society. Woe to you and to all of our daughters and sisters if the psychopaths eventually prove to have the selective advantage. Perhaps under another catastrophe, say a weird emerging disease, the psychopaths survive more than the rest of us. While their morality may be horrifying, hey, it's simply the eovlutionary solution.

If society decided that atheism (for example) was the source of all evil and that atheists were to be "saved" under penalty of death, do you really think the Bible couldn't be interpreted to justify doing so? The Bible has been used in the past for these purposes, and will undoubtedly be so used in the future - so what's the difference? MAN's altruism or lack thereof ultimately sets the rules. The people who were behind the 9/11 tragedies justified it in the name of religion, and those who flew the planes did so because "God commanded it". The fact that the people behind 9/11 were pursuing their own personal objectives doesn't change the fact that they used religion to help achieve them.

[zoegirl]

Would I like having my property stolen? My home burned? My wife and daughter raped (or myself, were I female)? My family killed? Myself and/or my family enslaved? .... Let's see, these are tough questions, well I'll guess I'll pass on 'em all, thanks. Ergo, I wouldn't do any of them to anyone else, and would (and have actually - civil rights protests in the '60s) actively act to prevent them from happening to others.

Okay, so whether or not you "like" something now determines ethics? We are right back to the problem at hand....the thief likes the property of others, the rapist likes the power, the murderer likes the kill, the liar likes the lie....etc. Sure the thief doesn't like it when his stuff gets stolen, but as long as he can guard his supplies well with weapons, everything is ok.

So who are you to determine the rightness of someone else's likes? Well, then it becomes part of the society's "majority" vote? The majority don;t like murder, the majority don't like rape, the majority form the laws? SHoot, we are seeing this right now with homosexuality. WE don't like it, so who in the world are you guys to judge us for viewing it as immoral or wrong? And the majority don't like it. The hilarity of the naturalistic worldview is that it should lead to anarchy. Or subject to the whims of rationalization (I can lie because....I can get away with it, I can kill this baby because it is sitll in the mother;s womb, not the mention the fact that it is born and breathing)

Well, if it's not the majority that forms the laws (if so, then racism could still unfornately be legal) then how? A small representative of people determine the laws of the land....what determine moral, lawful acts. Our government essentially acts as the establishiment of morality (racism is immoral, murder, rape, sexism,) and can establish morality (homosexuality...ok)

Again, if the population evolves to allow for rape and murder....you cannot escape the fact that it will be considered ethically correct. Morality is at the whims of selective advantage. An atheist worldview better rest upon the hopes that selection will never lead to the selection of murderers and liars and rapists, or else he will be forced to acknowledge that these are ok.


Suppose you time-travel to america 100 years from now.
Let's say that in 100 years we have had such a change in the american society and govenrment that controleld governement suicides are not only the norm but directed. According to the reasoning and the upbringing of those in the culture, this is considered not only necessary (population growth control) but preferred (avoiding starvation of the elderly and disabled....quality of life issues). Perhaps there are committees set up around the country where the terminally ill, disabled, and the sick/diseased are vetted for suicide/euthanasia. Can you think of ANY reason why you can concretely say this is wrong? The culture has been taught this (upbringing), their genes allow this, and the majority like this. (shoot we're already on the rpecipice of this kind of thinking). And because the young have been taught this, they now consider this a viable option as they are older.

Because of the upbringing and the genes, most people like to think of their relatives as not suffering, not starving and they consider this as ultimately good because the population has been so out of control that this ultimately helps out society. We are, after all, just animals, just like the family pet.

So int his scenario, the government might go through a list of people in the hospitals or in hospices or the disabled and come by the house after sending you a letter notifying you that your aunt bee is scheduled for her euthanasia in one month. SHe has cancer but the resources for cancer treatment are running low and she might have one year left....why wait a year when they know she will die? Would you object? Why? The upbringing of the society has taught them this is okay.

YOu are initially shocked at the new line of doctors specializing in pain-free death, the pages in the history textbooks that mock the environment in the 1990's where Dr. Death was ridiculed and scorned. Everybody seems to love this system. The population is under control, we manage our population as if we were one of the wildlife species we manage.

Why is this wrong? YOu might say that you don't like it....but the 100 year in-the-future America likes it. Are you in any position to judge? Why?

[Jac3510]

Wayne, I've already pointed out to you the fact that none of us believe that atheists don't have moral compasses. Why you insist on continuing to erect that straw man is beyond me.

The point is simply that atheists have no objective grounds on which to base their moral compass. WHY do they think rape is bad? Because it hurts a person? But why is that bad? Because you ought not hurt people? But why not? Why, why, why? In the end, the atheist recognizes that he or she values human life, but has no reason to value it over anything else. They just do as a matter of preference.

Now, that doesn't make their preference wrong. In fact, they are right in valuing human life. But, again, they have no REASON to value it. They may as well say, "I like chocolate ice cream. I hate vanilla." Fine. That's their preference. My question is this: since when should we base our behavior on someone else's preferences?

Christians value human life because humans are made in the image of God, and thus, are intrinsically valuable. If someone does something wrong, we can call them on it--including fellow Christians.

The point I made about that story is just what Zoe pointed out. In a world with no God to set values, value becomes 100% a matter of personal preference. That includes everything from beauty to morality. Thus, an atheist has no grounds on which to criticize a person who finds rape beautiful and marriage putrid. What is he to say? "I don't like that!" So what? Such things are meaningless.

Bottom line, Wayne:

No one is saying atheists cannot be moral and cannot recognize beauty. We are saying that have no BASIS for their morality (which they correctly hold to) or their recognition of beauty (which they properly do). Such things, by their worldview, can be nothing more than personal preference, on the level of chocolate vs. vanilla ice cream.

[jlay]

Sorry but an atheist has no grounds to boast regarding morality. If morality is simply the result of billions of years of evolution then it is no more significant than our ability to digest a hamburger. Further, that would allow no absolutes and so what is agreed to be moral by one society could be immoral by another. For example, defending the weak. One society could view that as morally good, another as bad. Based on the survival of the fittest, one could argue that defending the weak is immoral and counter productive to the culture.

I mean afterall couldn't we argue that the person guilty of rape is simply responding to their evolved sense to reproduce? How can the atheist argue that this is a less valid position than choosing not to rape? If morality is simply "adventageous" or a whim, then how can an atheist take delight in being "moral?" Should we let our gray matter be confused by electric firings in our synapses, and the release of hormones. Quit hampering evolution man, and let your animal intincts run wild.

An atheist can experience the love a parent feels for a child. But they must also be honest and admit that this is nothing more than chemical and electrical processes of the brain. They are simply being fooled into thinking it is significant. It is no more biologically significant than an elephant fart. To state otherwise is simply arrogance.

Siting the golden rule has to be the most hypocrtical thing they can do. Siting the teachings of Christ Himself, to defend atheism? Laughable.

If morality becomes a matter of agreement, that is a dangerous thing. Hitler had a country agreeing that Jews were less than human. The atrocities of slavery in the US was also the result of man moving the morality bar at his own whim.

Why can an atheist be moral? I would contend that it is exactly what the bible states. That God has given light to every man. That he has written His law upon our hearts. It is the prevenient grace of God, that allows the god hater to be guided by a moral compass, and to experience the goodness of God, even in His fallen state. The atheist can observe the beauty of a sunrise, but sadly doesn't know who to thank for it. An ahteist will hold onto to his morality as long as it suits him and no further. The idea of a God that will hold him morally accountable is the end of that discussion.

[waynepii]

Wayne, I've already pointed out to you the fact that none of us believe that atheists don't have moral compasses. Why you insist on continuing to erect that straw man is beyond me.

Does this sound as if "none of [you] believe atheists don't have moral compasses"?

His point, although Jac please correct me if I am wron, is that an atheist has no grounds for beliaving one thing beautifuland one thing atrocious.

Where is the root of beauty and ugliness in a atheist worldview??!?!!? If humans are just animals, and animals occasionally mutilate the offspring of another population member's young, then why the outrage?!?!?

LIons who take ovr a pride will often kill cubs from the previous male. Even wild horses ocassionally do this. If we are just animals, then a stepdad who abuses his children can be justified in preferring his own children to thoe of the joined marriage. Why not? We are just animals in the athiest workdview. The stepdad,after all, is protecting his genes from the competitors.

According to naturilstic anthropological models, humans raped during the process of our evolution. So how can we now proclaim rape and murder as *ugly*? Or too elaborate further, the only reason that we now consider rape to be ugly is that it is the *current* evol;utionary solution. That's it. So if, in 100 years, 1000 years, or however many years, if those peole with those genes are more successful, then we ould have a human population with rapists and murderers as being the norm.

Now, I'm sure most atheists DON"T view rape as beautiful....but the point should ultimately be,....WHY don't they and do they, in their worldview, have ANY justifucation in holding to that view. Or holding it against any body ese who DOES find rape enjoyable?!?!

I'm sure your husband/wife doesn't hold that rape is beautiful, but that does not negae the contradiction in his/her views. And although it is nice that you are broad -thinking in your marriage, I hope that you challenge him/her in his thinking.

If an atheist holds that our bliefs and our morality is in our genes, then who are we t judge their genes holding tht rape is enjoyable?!?!

The point is simply that atheists have no objective grounds on which to base their moral compass. WHY do they think rape is bad? Because it hurts a person? But why is that bad? Because you ought not hurt people? But why not? Why, why, why? In the end, the atheist recognizes that he or she values human life, but has no reason to value it over anything else. They just do as a matter of preference.

Do YOU have an "objective reference"? For instance, why do you know homosexuality is evil (or wrong, or sinful, if you prefer)?

Now, that doesn't make their preference wrong. In fact, they are right in valuing human life. But, again, they have no REASON to value it. They may as well say, "I like chocolate ice cream. I hate vanilla." Fine. That's their preference. My question is this: since when should we base our behavior on someone else's preferences?

Christians value human life because humans are made in the image of God, and thus, are intrinsically valuable. If someone does something wrong, we can call them on it--including fellow Christians.

Very admirable. So Christians never serve in the army, or only serve in non-combatant roles?

The point I made in that story is just what Zoe pointed out. In a world with no God to set values, value becomes 100% a matter of personal preference. That includes everything from beauty to morality. Thus, an atheist has no grounds on which to criticize a person who finds rape beautiful and marriage putrid. What is he to say? "I don't like that!" So what? Such things are meaningless.

Preference has nothing to do with it. If I see someone leave something valuable behind, my preference might be to pick it up and keep it. My moral compass reminds me it isn't mine, and I call their attention to their item. My compass being the Golden Rule.

Bottom line, Wayne:

No one is saying atheists cannot be moral and cannot recognize beauty. We are saying that have no BASIS for their morality (which they correctly hold to) or their recognition of beauty (which they properly do). Such things, by their worldview, can be nothing more than personal preference, on the level of chocolate vs. vanilla ice cream.

I say again, an atheist tells right from wrong by considering the situation with the roles reversed.

[Jac3510]

Does this sound as if "none of [you] believe atheists don't have moral compasses"?

Could you clarify what you are asking here. I'd rather not assume.

Do YOU have an "objective reference"? For instance, why do you know homosexuality is evil (or wrong, or sinful, if you prefer)?

The same way I know that I weigh 160 lbs. The same way I know that George Washington was the first US President. The same way I know that 2+2=4. In short, morality is part of the fabric of reality itself. It can't be denied any more than anything else in the objective world.

Now, that doesn't mean I might not be CORRECT in my assessment of a particular moral situation, just like I could be incorrect about my weight, the identity of the first US President, or any given math problem. Those things are subject to debate, but they can only be debated because there is a CORRECT answer that is part of reality itself. On the other hand, I can't debate whether vanilla or chocolate ice cream is better. There is no correct answer because that is not an objective question. It is only a matter of personal preference.

Very admirable. So Christians never serve in the army, or only serve in non-combatant roles?

And why would valuing human life require a person not to serve as a combatant for their country?

Preference has nothing to do with it. If I see someone leave something valuable behind, my preference might be to pick it up and keep it. My moral compass reminds me it isn't mine, and I call their attention to their item. My compass being the Golden Rule

If there is no God, preference has everything to do with it. You PREFER to live by the Golden Rule. What if someone else has a different compass? If there is no God, to tell them they have the wrong compass is tantamount to telling them that they are wrong in their preference of ice cream.

I say again, an atheist tells right from wrong by considering the situation with the roles reversed.

That's right. YOU say. And why should your words be binding? What if I show you someone who doesn't think that is how you tell right from wrong? Why should they take your personal standard over theirs?

[waynepii]

Does this sound as if "none of [you] believe atheists don't have moral compasses"?

Could you clarify what you are asking here. I'd rather not assume.

Do YOU have an "objective reference"? For instance, why do you know homosexuality is evil (or wrong, or sinful, if you prefer)?

The same way I know that I weigh 160 lbs. The same way I know that George Washington was the first US President. The same way I know that 2+2=4. In short, morality is part of the fabric of reality itself. It can't be denied any more than anything else in the objective world.

You know you weigh 160lbs because something or someone told you so.
You know GW was the first president because something or someone told you so.
You know 2+2=4 because something or someone told you so, or possibly by experiment.
So who or what told you about same-sex marriage?

Now, that doesn't mean I might not be CORRECT in my assessment of a particular moral situation, just like I could be incorrect about my weight, the identity of the first US President, or any given math problem. Those things are subject to debate, but they can only be debated because there is a CORRECT answer that is part of reality itself. On the other hand, I can't debate whether vanilla or chocolate ice cream is better. There is no correct answer because that is not an objective question. It is only a matter of personal preference.

It's far from a preference. Most of the important things are enacted as laws.

Very admirable. So Christians never serve in the army, or only serve in non-combatant roles?

And why would valuing human life require a person not to serve as a combatant for their country?

Because they might kill someone, or aid someone else in doing so. Or are the enemy "less valued"?

Preference has nothing to do with it. If I see someone leave something valuable behind, my preference might be to pick it up and keep it. My moral compass reminds me it isn't mine, and I call their attention to their item. My compass being the Golden Rule

If there is no God, preference has everything to do with it. You PREFER to live by the Golden Rule. What if someone else has a different compass? If there is no God, to tell them they have the wrong compass is tantamount to telling them that they are wrong in their preference of ice cream.

Do ALL Gods have the same compass?

I say again, an atheist tells right from wrong by considering the situation with the roles reversed.

That's right. YOU say. And why should your words be binding? What if I show you someone who doesn't think that is how you tell right from wrong? Why should they take your personal standard over theirs?

What if I showed you a religion with different values than Christianity?

I don't mean to argue comparative religions or to debate same-sex marriage. I am trying to determine how you determine what God really wants us to do. Is there a concrete, absolute reference?

[Jac3510]

You know you weigh 160lbs because something or someone told you so.
You know GW was the first president because something or someone told you so.
You know 2+2=4 because something or someone told you so, or possibly by experiment.
So who or what told you about same-sex marriage?

A scale told me I was 160 lbs. History books told me GW was the first Prez. Math and logic told me 2+2=4.

Before I answer your question about same-sex marrige, let me ask you: where did the scale, the history book, and math and logic get their information? From themselves, or somewhere else?

I got my view on same-sex marriage from the same place they got their info.

It's far from a preference. Most of the important things are enacted as laws.

Ah. So morality only counts if it is a law? So, since right now, same-sex marriage is illegal, we can consider it evil. And since at one time, slavery was considered legal in America, we could consider it good and wholesome, yes?

Because they might kill someone, or aid someone else in doing so. Or are the enemy "less valued"?

How does something having value forbid ever killing or destroying it?

Do ALL Gods have the same compass?

I don't understand your question--there is only one God. In any case, I'm not arguing about WHAT is right and wrong. That can only be debated if there really is such a thing. Perhaps I am wrong in my assessment of right and wrong. Perhaps it is actually right to lie, regardless of what I have been taught. But that could only be the case if God existed in such a way as to prefer lies to truth.

I am not arguing WHAT is right and wrong. We can debate that for the same reason we can debate my weight. Let's go back to the scale example. If I stand on a scale and it says I weigh 160, and I insist I only weigh 150, what will you say? You will tell me that I am wrong (on the assumption that the scale is properly calibrated). Why can you say that? Because my weight is not a matter of personal preference. It is a matter of objective reality. On the other hand, suppose I tell you that I prefer chocolate ice cream. Could you then say I was wrong? No, because that is a matter of PREFERENCE.

What we see, then, is that there can be no right and wrong with reference to preference. Preferences simply are. They are not correct or incorrect. In order for us to have a discussion on whether or not same-sex marriage is right or wrong, it MUST be a matter of reality itself and not a matter of personal preference. My point, then, is that morality IS a right/wrong issue, NOT an I prefer/don't prefer issue. Perhaps I am WRONG on same-sex marriage. Perhaps I am wrong on a lot of things. My compass might be off. But a bad compass doesn't mean there is no North.

What if I showed you a religion with different values than Christianity?

Then I'd show you two more than differ from Christianity AND the one you showed me. Then, I would ask you, "Are any of these more or less right than any other?"

If they are more or less right, then morality is objective. That is a statement that no atheist can make, and thus, atheism stands refuted. If atheism is true, then there is NO SUCH THING as right and wrong, regardless of what you may PREFER, because that is all "morality" would be reduced to: preference.

I don't mean to argue comparative religions or to debate same-sex marriage. I am trying to determine how you determine what God really wants us to do. Is there a concrete, absolute reference?

First off, I don't determine what God wants us to do any more than I determine the identity of the first president, the answer to a math problem, or my weight. I discover those things. The American people of that generation determined the first president, my genetic makeup and eating habits determined my weight, and reality itself determined the answer to any given math question. To determine is to cause--it is an ontological word. To discover is to find out a cause--it is epistemological.

With that out of the way, I discover what God wants me to do the same way as I discover anything else in life. I look at reality and use reason to find out how it works. We have found out how weight works, how math works, and how to track history. Likewise, we can find out how morality works. All by reason. And reason tells me that things like same-sex marriage and murder are wrong.

In fact, to be technical, same-sex marriage isn't wrong. It just doesn't exist. Murder is wrong, and I'm sure you can give very good REASONS why that is the case. But, again, both of those statements appeal to precisely the same thing: the nature of reality itself.

[waynepii]

You know you weigh 160lbs because something or someone told you so.
You know GW was the first president because something or someone told you so.
You know 2+2=4 because something or someone told you so, or possibly by experiment.
So who or what told you about same-sex marriage?

A scale told me I was 160 lbs. History books told me GW was the first Prez. Math and logic told me 2+2=4.

Before I answer your question about same-sex marrige, let me ask you: where did the scale, the history book, and math and logic get their information? From themselves, or somewhere else?

A scale makes a measurement using an established standard (pounds or kilograms) as an indirect reference.
A history book is based upon records and other documents written at the time.
A math book contains facts for which the proofs are incontrovertible.

I got my view on same-sex marriage from the same place they got their info.

That's definitive.

It's far from a preference. Most of the important things are enacted as laws.

Ah. So morality only counts if it is a law? So, since right now, same-sex marriage is illegal, we can consider it evil. And since at one time, slavery was considered legal in America, we could consider it good and wholesome, yes?

That's not what I meant, and I'm sure you know it. But when slavery was legal, most religions supported it, or at least did nothing to end it. Some clergy worked for abolition, mainly in the north, and only fairly late (1850s and 1860s).

Because they might kill someone, or aid someone else in doing so. Or are the enemy "less valued"?

How does something having value forbid ever killing or destroying it?

We're not talking about "things", we're talking about people.

Do ALL Gods have the same compass?

I don't understand your question--there is only one God. In any case, I'm not arguing about WHAT is right and wrong. That can only be debated if there really is such a thing. Perhaps I am wrong in my assessment of right and wrong. Perhaps it is actually right to lie, regardless of what I have been taught. But that could only be the case if God existed in such a way as to prefer lies to truth.

Haven't there been a fairly long list of gods over the years? Many of whom demanded human sacrifice for instance. Do you think those who worshiped these gods believed any less fervently than modern day born again Christians?

I am not arguing WHAT is right and wrong. We can debate that for the same reason we can debate my weight. Let's go back to the scale example. If I stand on a scale and it says I weigh 160, and I insist I only weigh 150, what will you say? You will tell me that I am wrong (on the assumption that the scale is properly calibrated). Why can you say that? Because my weight is not a matter of personal preference. It is a matter of objective reality. On the other hand, suppose I tell you that I prefer chocolate ice cream. Could you then say I was wrong? No, because that is a matter of PREFERENCE.

Agreed

What we see, then, is that there can be no right and wrong with reference to preference. Preferences simply are. They are not correct or incorrect. In order for us to have a discussion on whether or not same-sex marriage is right or wrong, it MUST be a matter of reality itself and not a matter of personal preference. My point, then, is that morality IS a right/wrong issue, NOT an I prefer/don't prefer issue. Perhaps I am WRONG on same-sex marriage. Perhaps I am wrong on a lot of things. My compass might be off. But a bad compass doesn't mean there is no North.

Are you sure you don't just prefer not to be around homosexuals?

What if I showed you a religion with different values than Christianity?

Then I'd show you two more than differ from Christianity AND the one you showed me. Then, I would ask you, "Are any of these more or less right than any other?"

If they are more or less right, then morality is objective. That is a statement that no atheist can make, and thus, atheism stands refuted. If atheism is true, then there is NO SUCH THING as right and wrong, regardless of what you may PREFER, because that is all "morality" would be reduced to: preference.

That's simply not true. Of course an atheist knows right from wrong.

I don't mean to argue comparative religions or to debate same-sex marriage. I am trying to determine how you determine what God really wants us to do. Is there a concrete, absolute reference?

First off, I don't determine what God wants us to do any more than I determine the identity of the first president, the answer to a math problem, or my weight. I discover those things. The American people of that generation determined the first president, my genetic makeup and eating habits determined my weight, and reality itself determined the answer to any given math question. To determine is to cause--it is an ontological word. To discover is to find out a cause--it is epistemological.

My bad. Make that question "I''m trying to understand how you (non-specific "you", not necessarily you personally) come to discern God's will or intent on a given subject?"

BTW According to Merriam-Webster, my use of "determine" was correct, but I'll admit it could be misinterpreted and thus not the best way of stating my question. Sorry for the confusion. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/determine

With that out of the way, I discover what God wants me to do the same way as I discover anything else in life. I look at reality and use reason to find out how it works. We have found out how weight works, how math works, and how to track history. Likewise, we can find out how morality works. All by reason. And reason tells me that things like same-sex marriage and murder are wrong.

How is your reasoning more correct than an atheist (or anyone else, for that matter) using their moral compass? I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm trying to understand. I have been married to my wife (yes, a female) for more than 30 years, and have never had any interest in homosexuality. But I don't see why I should care who someone else chooses as a sex partner. I wouldn't appreciate someone telling me my wife was "inappropriate" for some reason, so I wouldn't make a similar judgment of others. If God really disapproves of homosexuality, I guess that is between God and the transgressors.

[Jac3510]

A scale makes a measurement using an established standard (pounds or kilograms) as an indirect reference.
A history book is based upon records and other documents written at the time.
A math book contains facts for which the proofs are incontrovertible.

That's definitive.

That's right. In all three cases, my knowledge comes from an instrument that measures reality. None of those instruments create the fact. They simply convey to me, and anyone else who cares to look, facts about the way reality is. None of them are a matter of preference. The same is true with morality. If it is an objective part of reality, which is all I've ever argued, then there is an instrument by which we perceive it. Would you care to take a guess what that instrument is?

That's not what I meant, and I'm sure you know it. But when slavery was legal, most religions supported it, or at least did nothing to end it. Some clergy worked for abolition, mainly in the north, and only fairly late (1850s and 1860s).

What does religion, or law for that matter, have anything do with reality? If people can be wrong about their view of morality, then what does appealing to their incorrect assessments of reality have anything to do with anything? Should I complain that math doesn't work because some people get their sums wrong?

We're not talking about "things", we're talking about people.

Sure, and people, you seem to think, have value. But says who? You? So what? Do people still have value even if someone disagrees that they do? What about the unborn? Do they have value, because a lot of people say they don't.

Second, you didn't answer my question. Regardless of human value, since when did the fact that ANYTHING having value, including people, preclude, in all cases, destroying them? What I am asking you is this: does it necessarily follow that because something has value, it ought not be destroyed?

Haven't there been a fairly long list of gods over the years? Many of whom demanded human sacrifice for instance. Do you think those who worshiped these gods believed any less fervently than modern day born again Christians?

No, and I'm not sure what people's belief systems have to do with anything. Again, just because people get something wrong doesn't mean that the thing they are wrong about doesn't exist. Again, I ask, just because someone gets their sums wrong, does that mean that math does not exist?

Are you sure you don't just prefer not to be around homosexuals?

Yes, I am quite sure, but thank you for asking.

That's simply not true. Of course an atheist knows right from wrong.

I didn't say anything about what an atheist knows. For the love of God, how many times do I have to say this, Wayne? Here, I'll put it in NICE BIG WORDS--a trick I learned from an atheist who has now been banned--and hopefully we can settle this little disagreement once and for all:

CHRISTIANS BELIEVE THAT ATHEISTS KNOW RIGHT FROM WRONG. WE BELIEVE IT BECAUSE OUR PHILOSOPHY SAYS SO, AND WE BELIEVE IT BECAUSE THE BIBLE SAYS SO

You keep confusing knowledge of right and wrong, which is an epistemological question, with the actual nature of right and wrong, which is an ontological question. I made no epistemological claims. I made an ontological claim. Notice what I said: "If atheism is true, then there is NO SUCH THING as right and wrong,"

So, here is the issue: is there such a thing as right and wrong? If so, atheism is false. If there is not, atheism may well be true. In any case, if God does exist (ontological statement), then an atheist can still be an atheist and deny His existence (epistemological statement). Thus, if God does exist, there really can be right and wrong, even if the atheist does not believe in God. And if there really is right and wrong, then the atheist has just as much access to it as you or I do, even if he denies the source of it.

Consider, again, the waterfall analogy I gave you some time ago. Suppose two men are drinking from a stream that is being fed a few hundred yards up by a waterfall. The first says, "Wow, I am sure glad that waterfall is there giving us this stream." The second replies, "Waterfall? You idiot, there is no waterfall!"

Now, the fact that the second denies the waterfall's existence does not mean that suddenly doesn't have the ability to drink from the water in front of him. In the same way, just because the atheist denies the source of morality doesn't mean he doesn't have access to it if it is a part of reality, which I am asserting that it is. But if there is no God, then there is no source of morality, and thus, there is no such thing as morality at all for ANYONE to have access to. Morality would turn out to be an illusion. All there would be is preference about what I like and don't like and what you like and you don't like. But there wouldn't be right or wrong, regardless of what you or I thought about God's existence.

My bad. Make that question "I''m trying to understand how you (non-specific "you", not necessarily you personally) come to discern God's will or intent on a given subject?"

The same way you do anything else. You have a pretty good start with the Golden Rule -- an appeal to reason. But notice that an atheist as well as a Christian have the same access to that rule. Again, I am not saying a person cannot be moral if they don't believe in God. Just the opposite, they can. I am saying there is no ontological basis for morality if God does not exist.

BTW According to Merriam-Webster, my use of "determine" was correct, but I'll admit it could be misinterpreted and thus not the best way of stating my question. Sorry for the confusion. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/determine

Feel free to use loose language in regular conversation. But in these types of discussions, words have specific meanings, and those kinds of distinctions can become very important . . . like the difference in talking about the ontological vs. epistemological nature of morality, an issue you seem to be consistently confusing.

How is your reasoning more correct than an atheist (or anyone else, for that matter) using their moral compass? I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm trying to understand. I have been married to my wife (yes, a female) for more than 30 years, and have never had any interest in homosexuality. But I don't see why I should care who someone else chooses as a sex partner. I wouldn't appreciate someone telling me my wife was "inappropriate" for some reason, so I wouldn't make a similar judgment of others. If God really disapproves of homosexuality, I guess that is between God and the transgressors.

Maybe I'm wrong about homosexuality. We can have that debate. My point is only this, Wayne: in order for me to be WRONG about homosexuality, then there has to be a since in which homosexuality is not WRONG. In other words, in order to even have this debate, we first must concede that the words "right" and "wrong" have meanings that go beyond personal preference. It has to mean that our views of morality can be incorrect, that is, they can not line up with reality itself just as my view of my weight, a math problem, or a historical fact can all be wrong.

In still other words, in order to have the debate about whether or not I am wrong about homosexuality (or any other moral issue, for that matter), we first must assume that the issue has its own intrinsic moral value apart from what you and I believe about it. Thus, in order to have the debate, we must begin with the idea that morality is NOT a matter of opinion or personal belief, but a matter of reality itself.

We call that obective reality.

Now, since I believe morality is objective, we can have the epistemological discussion--that is, how you know. But if morality is NOT objective, then we can have no discussion on how I know it is wrong, because it isn't right OR wrong. If morality is not objective, then it has no ontological value. If morality is not objective, then it is nothing more than personal preference, and as I've shown, preference cannot be right or wrong. It just is.

But if you agree that morality is objective--that I can be right or wrong about a moral view I hold--then you must affirm that God exists and that atheism is false. You are not affirming in this that atheists cannot be moral (remember the waterfall analogy). The reason is that morality cannot be objective is God does not exist. There is no debate about that. It's just a fact.

Of course, if God does exist, it does not necessarily follow that morality is objective. God could well have not created that as a part of reality. But in order for morality to be objective, God MUST have put it into the fabric of reality. Put shortly, we can say this:

If God exists, morality may or may not be objective;
If God does not exist, morality cannot be objective;
Thus, if morality is not objective, God may or may not exist; and
If morality is objective, God must exist.

That's the ontological side of the debate, Wayne. Only when that is established can we move on to a discussion about whether or not any particular moral action really is right or wrong. To try to debate if something is right or wrong while denying that right and wrong exist is self-refuting.

[jlay]

Jac,
What reading would you recommend to study some of the ideas you bring up here? Those are some fantastic arguments to demonstrate the basic fallacies of atheistic thinking.

Haven't there been a fairly long list of gods over the years? Many of whom demanded human sacrifice for instance. Do you think those who worshiped these gods believed any less fervently than modern day born again Christians?

How fervent one believes is not evidence for the truth of the cause. No doubt people have died for causes that have nothing to do with matters of religion. How many people died for the cause of "taxation without representation?"
They were certainly fervent.
Christianity is not right because it has a certain number of believers, or because said believers demonstrate a certain level of passion. If Christianity is true, it would be true even if no one beleived. Conversely it doesn't become more true if everyone believes it. That is the danger of morality as a preference as Jac mentioned.

It doesn't matter how many religions or how old they are. In fact many false religions can make accurate moral statements. Just as an atheist can make an accurate moral decision.
A class of 100 takes a test, and only one student gets the right answer. 30 come to the same wrong conclusion. 69 come to various other wrong answers. What does the outcome have to do with the truth of the answer? Nada, nothing, zip.

But all this takes us back to the same question. Can we KNOW moral truth? If morality is just a fervent feeling, then it is as Jac says, a preference; it isn't actually right or wrong.
If there is right and wrong then atheism is falsifiable.

[Jac3510]

Jac,
What reading would you recommend to study some of the ideas you bring up here? Those are some fantastic arguments to demonstrate the basic fallacies of atheistic thinking.

Most of what I use came from a couple of different books which may seem unrelated, but I think give absolutely essential concepts.

Obviously, Mere Christianity gives the best overall explanation of the moral argument ever, but it must be augmented with a few other sources:

1. John Frame's Apologetics to the Glory of God. It's a tough read, but it is absolutely wonderful. In it, he defends a different version of the moral argument which he calls the "Transcendental Moral Argument," if I recall correctly. While I don't agree with his overall apologetic (he defends presuppositional apologetics), he makes some crucial distinctions that I frankly think we are almost useless without;

2. Thomas Howe's Objectivity in Biblical Interpretation. A very long book that never touches on morality. However, he takes a long time to study the meaning of objectivity. Further, he thoroughly explains the differerences between metaphysics (ontology), epistemology, linguistics, and hermeneutics, and, best of all, he explains how they relate to one another. (review)

3. Henry Veatch's Two Logics. Probably the hardest read in this list, but will give the greatest benefits if you finish it. He neither deals with morality nor objectivity, but even more fundamentally, he deals with the nature of philosophy itself. More specifically, it is a critique of what is called analytical philosophy and a defense of classical philosophy. What makes this so important is that it is very much a study of language and how we communicate ideas, or, put differently, the relationship between words and thoughts. When that is clear to you, and when the fallacy in alternative ways of looking at it is also clear, it becomes very easy to spot--and point out--when other people are working from wrong bases. While you will almost never quote Veatch in conversation, the frame he helps you put argumentation itself in is invaluable. (review)

Beyond these three books, William Lane Craig always makes much out of the moral argument in his debates, and I have learned a lot from his presentations. You can always just check out his debates on video.google.com. He also has a couple of good articles you may want to read, one scholarly (here), and a very good popular one (here). He also has a refutation of the problem of evil here. Anything that has to do with the PoE will help in this area, because the two are very closely related.

Finally, I just study philosophy generally, specifically, classical Thomistic philosophy (Joseph Owens and Etienne Gilson are the two best on this). Having a good philosophical basis helps craft good responses.

Anyway . . . that's where I get most of my stuff from.

[waynepii]

A scale makes a measurement using an established standard (pounds or kilograms) as an indirect reference.
A history book is based upon records and other documents written at the time.
A math book contains facts for which the proofs are incontrovertible.

That's definitive.

That's right. In all three cases, my knowledge comes from an instrument that measures reality. None of those instruments create the fact. They simply convey to me, and anyone else who cares to look, facts about the way reality is. None of them are a matter of preference. The same is true with morality. If it is an objective part of reality, which is all I've ever argued, then there is an instrument by which we perceive it. Would you care to take a guess what that instrument is?

Your weight is measured by a scale - its calibration and accuracy can be checked and calibrated using a second scale or special equipment and standard weights.

The identity of the first president can be determined by consulting a history book - its accuracy can be verified by consulting other documents from independent sources.

The accuracy of the sum of 2+2 can be verified by consulting arithmetic textbooks or by experimentation.

How do we assess the accuracy of your "mystery" instrument?

How is your reasoning more correct than an atheist (or anyone else, for that matter) using their moral compass? I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm trying to understand. I have been married to my wife (yes, a female) for more than 30 years, and have never had any interest in homosexuality. But I don't see why I should care who someone else chooses as a sex partner. I wouldn't appreciate someone telling me my wife was "inappropriate" for some reason, so I wouldn't make a similar judgment of others. If God really disapproves of homosexuality, I guess that is between God and the transgressors.

Maybe I'm wrong about homosexuality. We can have that debate. My point is only this, Wayne: in order for me to be WRONG about homosexuality, then there has to be a since in which homosexuality is not WRONG. In other words, in order to even have this debate, we first must concede that the words "right" and "wrong" have meanings that go beyond personal preference. It has to mean that our views of morality can be incorrect, that is, they can not line up with reality itself just as my view of my weight, a math problem, or a historical fact can all be wrong.

In still other words, in order to have the debate about whether or not I am wrong about homosexuality (or any other moral issue, for that matter), we first must assume that the issue has its own intrinsic moral value apart from what you and I believe about it. Thus, in order to have the debate, we must begin with the idea that morality is NOT a matter of opinion or personal belief, but a matter of reality itself.

We call that obective reality.

Now, since I believe morality is objective, we can have the epistemological discussion--that is, how you know. But if morality is NOT objective, then we can have no discussion on how I know it is wrong, because it isn't right OR wrong. If morality is not objective, then it has no ontological value. If morality is not objective, then it is nothing more than personal preference, and as I've shown, preference cannot be right or wrong. It just is.

But if you agree that morality is objective--that I can be right or wrong about a moral view I hold--then you must affirm that God exists and that atheism is false. You are not affirming in this that atheists cannot be moral (remember the waterfall analogy). The reason is that morality cannot be objective is God does not exist. There is no debate about that. It's just a fact.

Of course, if God does exist, it does not necessarily follow that morality is objective. God could well have not created that as a part of reality. But in order for morality to be objective, God MUST have put it into the fabric of reality. Put shortly, we can say this:

If God exists, morality may or may not be objective;
If God does not exist, morality cannot be objective;
Thus, if morality is not objective, God may or may not exist; and
If morality is objective, God must exist.

That's the ontological side of the debate, Wayne. Only when that is established can we move on to a discussion about whether or not any particular moral action really is right or wrong. To try to debate if something is right or wrong while denying that right and wrong exist is self-refuting.

So you agree with me that we really can't say whether homosexuality is right or wrong. Since we don't know for sure that it's "wrong" and it doesn't affect anybody other than the (assumedly consenting) participants, why the big furor about letting people of the same gender get married if they wish.

[Gman]

So you agree with me that we really can't say whether homosexuality is right or wrong. Since we don't know for sure that it's "wrong" and it doesn't affect anybody other than the (assumedly consenting) participants, why the big furor about letting people of the same gender get married if they wish.

Wayne... I wouldn't say that homosexuality isn't exactly harmless. It does affect others (and the two involved) as the statistics show...

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articl ... o0075.html

http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexual ... _Lifestyle