Derbyshire reviews Spencer: The seeds of defeat in the war on terror are sown by Christianity
posted at 1:29 pm on August 21, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
I haven’t read the book so I’ll reserve comment, but how often does Robert Spencer get attacked from the right? Mmm, that’s red:
[V]ery uncomfortably for a Christian apologist like Robert Spencer (so uncomfortably he has not confronted it in this book, nor in any of the other writings of his I have perused; nor have I ever seen it mentioned in the rest of the burgeoning literature of Islamophobia), a great enabler of globalization has been the Christian tradition. If all men are brothers, heathens only a little less enlightened than Christians, they why should not a Pakistani, or a Somali, or for that matter a Mexican, come to live in the U.S.A.? Why should not ten million of each do so? Would it not in fact be un-Christian to refuse entry to those tens of millions? It beggars belief that anyone should hold such a civilizationally-suicidal view, but many Christians do—the current President of the United States, for example.
That leads more or less directly to this book’s most surprising omission: a failure to prescribe. If things are as Robert Spencer says they are, what is to be done? He offers nothing but a vague, half-hearted statement about the need for an “alliance” between “Hindus, Buddhists, secular Muslims [huh?—the previous 206 pages have left the rather strong impression that the only secular Muslim is a dead Muslim], and atheists.” (p. 207) What should we of the West do if such an alliance fails to appear?
Most of our Christian readers will take strong exception to the idea that Christianity is necessarily an enabler of globalization. Fair enough, but I’d be remiss if I didn’t note a striking example of Derb’s point on our own site within the past 24 hours.
I like this passage, too:
Perhaps the humane forbearance of the Prince of Peace, and the moral universalism that His teachings imply, bear the seeds of self-destruction. Those seeds were slow to germinate in the long centuries when great mass migrations of people into well-settled lands could only be military affairs. However, the globalization movement of the past fifty years has allowed millions of souls to move and settle peaceably into the old Christian lands; and our old ideals, with whatever contribution—major and critical, according to Spencer—from their Christian component, have urged us to welcome the settlers, and have called fierce obloquy on anyone who complains.
Spencer can’t have it both ways. If “even the secularists” are “rooted in the Judeo-Christian culture,” then so are their impulses to hate that culture and yield to its enemies. So what does he expect? Indeed, the secularists, with all their Christophobia, are a better bet for standing and fighting against jihadism than Christians are. If there were a proposal to impose Sharia law in your town, who would you rather see riding to your aid: Christopher Hitchens, or Bishop Muskens?
Spencer has promised PJM he’ll respond. In the meantime, anyone read the book yet and care to reply?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 »
The correct analogy is that the potential for matter IS equally distributed throughout the universe. And you know what? Its true. An not just potential matter, but actual virtual particles of matter. It’s called the zero point energy of the vacuum and the amount of it is a 1 followed by 150 zeroes TIMES the amount of energy that would be needed to explain the mass of the universe.
A quote from wikipedia: “There is no easy way out, and reconciling the seemingly huge zero-point energy of space with the observed zero or small cosmological constant has become one of the important problems in theoretical physics, and has become a criterion by which to judge a candidate”
I’m using to reverse the use of Occam’s razor. Rather than a god of the gaps, the materialistic intuition that we use to reject the teapot is based on an astronomically small fraction of just that part of the universe we that we even have the slightest handle on.
So what broke down my atheistic faith in science alone was the question of which is more likely: that brains give rise to consciousness, or did consciousness give rise to brains?
pedestrian on August 23, 2007 at 1:04 PM
700!
jdpaz on August 23, 2007 at 1:05 PM
right2bright:
You can’t “translate correctly” and also “pick the wrong word” simultaneously. The job of the translator is to translate into the language that the reader would understand. If the translator wrote “cud” but something other that “cud” was intended, then the translator has, in fact, failed at their job, by definition. And that is exactly what you are saying the translators of the KJV, NIV, and RSV did. What other words did they translate incorrectly?
But things get even worse for you. Let’s put some precious context around Deut 14:7:
If “cud” refers to something else, then what was the purpose of including the long list of ruminants there indicating that they do chew the cud (and they do)? If “cud” means something other than cud in Deut 14:7, then you are out of the frying pan and into the fire.
Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon is NOT necessary to understand the Bible or Christianity.
Forgive me for relying on the words of translators who know much more about ancient Hebrew than you do. I repeat: your argument is with them, not with me. Scores of learned scholars translated Deut 14:7 as “[rabbits] chew the cud” and you are the one telling me that they didn’t actually mean to write “cud”.
Forgive me for my familiarity with standard Christian dogma. You may very well go to a liberal church that doesn’t require Jesus for salvation. That said, it is, in fact, standard Christian dogma that the price of “falling short” is eternal torture in the firey furnace of hell, and that you were born destined for hell because of your “sin nature”. Hence, you need Jesus. It doesn’t matter how many babies you’ve killed or not killed, you’re destined for hell no matter what you do or don’t do until you get Jesus. I think that is harmful, bad theology.
You’re right: that is, in fact, much like Christianity! The way to make the analogy perfect would be if there was a “Math Jesus” through whom you could become “Math sanctified” and was the only way to “Math heaven”.
Those are all good and noble things, but it doesn’t erase the part of your religion that I object to. Christianity isn’t all bad, but the bad parts aren’t made good by the good parts.
Yes, I’ve heard that “Christian love” before. It usually follows a long string of personal attacks.
Loundry on August 23, 2007 at 1:06 PM
pedestrian,
Okay, let me see if I have it straight.
All of humanity is worthless, sinful trash and we all need Jesus to “fix” us. God loves us and sent his son to die for us. That offer of redemption is open to anyone who accepts it. No works needed, just accept the gift.
Is that correct, according to your religion?
Loundry on August 23, 2007 at 1:09 PM
I never said you had to get morality from the Bible. After all, Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, all have elaborate and well-defined moral codes. I said that morality depends on an appeal to God, to a metaphysical realm beyond the mere physical world. Without a belief in God or gods or some non-physical entity I have a hard time understand what morality is based on. I understand that murder is illegal, but why, for an atheist, is it Wrong? Indeed, for a strict atheist, do terms like Right and Wrong have any meaning? Nonfactor for example keeps repeating like a mantra that God doesn’t exist because God cannot be proven. I accepted that (see above). But replace “God” with “morality” and the atheists are in a tough spot.
If one only accepts what can be proven then morality, like all metaphysical entities and powers, is a fiction. It doesn’t exist. Not surprisingly, most atheist find this uncomfortable but I don’t really understand why. Once you abandon metaphysics, people are just very clever animals and animals don’t have any sense of morality (or at least none that can be proven).
Thomas the Wraith on August 23, 2007 at 1:09 PM
Where do you get your morality? You’ve told me where you don’t get it. That’s great but where do your notions of right and wrong come from? Do you intuit them from the ether? Base them on some authority? Are they merely habits of behaviour without any meaningful moral component? Are they traditions handed down that have no validity outside your culture?
Atheists in general are great at denying and producing arguments against the positions of others but how about producing some argument FOR a position. For atheists, what is the source of morality (if any such a thing exists)? Just curious.
Thomas the Wraith on August 23, 2007 at 1:21 PM
I’m fascinated that you called those actions “mercies” and “signs” in effort to avoid the hated word “works”. But, in any event, you are dead wrong. Jesus himself gathers “all the nations” and divides everyone according to who has done the five works and who has NOT done the five works. The former goes to the Heaven Club, and the latter roasts in hell forever. No faith is mentioned. If this was anyone but Jesus Christ himself saying this, then I might be tempted to cut you some slack. Right now, you can read Jesus’ words just as well as I am, and your response is to blindly claim, “That’s what it says, but that’s not what it means!”
I beg to differ that the issue of salvation is “very clear”! The fact that Jesus says that it’s based on five specific works in one place and based solely on faith in another place is precisely what muddies the waters so badly on the singlemost important issue in the entire Bible!
But it gets even worse for you. Consider the following:
If there was *ever* a time to ask the question, this man had the golden opportunity in his hands. He had Jesus face-to-face and asked him point-blank. How did Jesus answer? Did he say, “Have faith in me and you will enter life.”? If he did, then that would really bolster your argument that it is “very clear” that salvation is based on faith and faith alone. But Jesus didn’t say that. Instead, he said this:
Clearly, salvation is based on works. Specifically, entering life and having treasure in heaven is based on obeying the commandments. Jesus backs me up.
(Get ready for some X-Treme “That’s what it says, but that’s not what it means”!)
Loundry on August 23, 2007 at 1:22 PM
That is not accurate.
Any and all interpretation involves discussing meanings, linguistics, hermeneutics, context, etc with the written text.
This is true of Constitutional interpretations. Right-leaning Supreme Court justices read the same 2nd Amendment as do Left-leaning Supreme Court justices, and yet, they arrive at different conclusions.
Interpretation is tough. It is work. But I do not see at all how Christians are the only ones who struggle with this.
Any interpretation, whether it be interpretation of Mein Kampf or The Conscience of a Conservative takes work.
ColtsFan on August 23, 2007 at 1:44 PM
Worthless is a little too absolute, in that we are at least worthy enough vessels to witness God’s glory.
pedestrian on August 23, 2007 at 1:47 PM
Jesus said many times that he spoke in parables so that only those with faith would understand him. In this parable, we see the whole Old Testament recapitulated in a few verses. I’ll make even simpler. God says “Do this and you go to heaven.” Man says “no.” God says, “OK, you can go anyway, but it will be because I love you not because you did anything worthy.”
And how do we show our gratitude? By doing the “five” things Jesus listed.
I agree it is a deep mystery why not all will go to heaven, but I think there are enough glimpses of God’s nature to get a feel for why. The main thing is we don’t know, but God does.
pedestrian on August 23, 2007 at 1:54 PM
(you say clearly, yet Luther says cleary it is not works, I think I would take Luther the theologian over Loundry the blogger)
Or, that you cannot love something more than the Lord. He asked the man to give up something that had greater worth than the Lord. It is a parable…a parable.
Salvation is based on God’s grace, do you think you can manipulate God into giving you salvation? You can’t “work” your way into heaven.
It would be like me saying to you, you have made an error in interpretation, admit you are wrong. You would walk away rather than admit wrong.
It is not works, it is what are you willing to sacrifice for love?
A selfish man hoards his wealth above all else, and an opinionated man hoards his beliefs above all else.
That would be a good one for you to take up my challenge on. I think you may have me “trapped” again by your clever apologetics.
right2bright on August 23, 2007 at 1:59 PM
Meaning, the only possible real value we have is the potential that we might witness God’s glory. Otherwise, we’re worthless and deserve to be thrown in a fire for all eternity.
Is it now correct?
Loundry on August 23, 2007 at 1:59 PM
The section in Matthew quoted is an event, not a parable. Jesus wasn’t telling a story to illustrate a point. Instead, an event was recounted in which Jesus was a primary character, telling another character that salvation was based on following the commandments and would earn someone “treasure in heaven”. Nice try.
Loundry on August 23, 2007 at 2:03 PM
But we’re not talking about something as trivial as the US Constitution. We’re talking about the perfect word of a divine being, the misunderstanding of which will land you in an eternity of flaming torture. I think the stakes are quite a bit higher, don’t you? (Or maybe we shouldn’t take the Bible quite so serously …)
Loundry on August 23, 2007 at 2:06 PM
But please can we not forget that all of Christianity is founded upon a collection of books of mostly unknown authors assembled by men, copied by men, translated by men and if that isn’t enough its apologized for by men.
It’s the fact that God instead of telling his message to me God told other anonymous people to tell me he exists but then those people he told to tell me can’t seem to agree on what is was I am supposed to know. Coincidentally the same as what would occur in a religion created by man.
Christians claim God wants to save everyone but then he reveals himself to a small portion of the worl population and then relies on that small portion to carry his message based on the current transportation technology. Years and years millenia even go by and the message never gets to north america until it travels here by boat. Coincidentally just as it would occur in a religion created by man.
God heals everything from leprosy to death. All of the things which might on rare occasion actually be healed by the body. Yet God never heals amputees. Never even regrows so much as a finger. Which is coincidentally the one thing man has not been able to do (yet) and coincidentally the one ailment that has never been healed by prayer just the same as in a religion created by man.
It’s young earth creation, when we know the Earth is older. It’s 2 different creation stories. It’s plants before the sun and magic trees. It’s killing babies, talking snakes and donkeys, and 4 legged insects. It’s gods that worry because man is building a tower too high. It’s God’s inability to conquer a people with iron chariots. It’s killing babies and raping women. It’s Gilgamesh and Sargon of Akkad. It’s God telling man an appropriate sacrifice consists of cutting up animals and waving their parts in the air. It’s God asking men to kill the babies of their enemies and then Jesus telling them not to harm the children. It’s Christians apologizing and explaining that God had his reasons for killing babies and I say he’s God and if he wants to kill babies he can do it himself that’s something I will refuse to do. It’s the Johannine Comma.. what else was added, deleted or rewritten? It’s how did Judas die? It’s what were the last words Jesus said? It’s that John the Baptist survived the killing of the infants by Herod. It’s that Jesus is not even a descendent of David so how can he fulfill prophecy if Mary was a virgin. It’s the inconsistency of Paul’s conversion. It’s the census at the birth of Jesus and the inconsistant Easter stories etc. etc. etc. etc.
It is the accumulation of all these things and so so much more. It is the actual need for apologetics in the manual of salvation written by God.
Why would God write/inspire something that requires apologetics?
Why would God give us this brain and then condemn us for questioning the writings of anonymous people?
frreal on August 23, 2007 at 2:13 PM
right2bright,
I don’t think you’re seriously engaged in the discussion any more, but I did want to respond to your bet. Normally I’m not the betting type (I hate gambling), but the stakes you propose are far too low. Instead of money for charity, I propose that we play for the eternal souls of the fence-sitters and lukewarm Christians who are reading this thread. Whoever (me or the Christian apologists) has the more convincing arguments can claim victory by virtue of how many of these people end up being swayed one way or the other. It’ll be hard to measure, I admit, but I think it’s worth it.
Loundry on August 23, 2007 at 2:14 PM
Some of the atheists here have inadvertently hit upon my chief frustration with atheists: they say that God doesn’t exist but want to keep all the secondary benefits of theism (morality, human equality, rights, etc). Atheists deny that God exists but live their lives as if God does exist.
Atheism can be a philosophically consistent position. I’ve met many atheists (hell, I ran an atheist association in college) and all of them act, in other areas of life, as if God exists. It seems to me that most atheists, because they want to keep some metaphysical notions while still denying God, are really just embarrassed by their own theism. That’s why I think that groups like Amnesty International and PETA are just Theism Lite – they say there is no God even as they worship at the alter of Human and Animal Rights. What a croc!
If one is going to be an atheist, I say go all the way, man! Embrace atheism and all its implications and consequences. Live it up.
But why is this so hard? Why does a self-proclaimed atheist like Hitchens (whose writing and speeches I adore) still rely on worn-out, unprovable metaphysical notions of human rights and morality? Why, even among philosophers, do atheists in the end have to base their world-view on some ghost in the machine? Even Nietzsche in the end just replaced eternity with the Eternal Return. Big difference. Thanks for playing, Fred.
For a strict atheist like Dawkins the genocide in Darfur is perfectly explainable in term of a conflict over resources between two genetically different groups. The winners live and the losers die. This is a natural event with no moral component whatsoever. Indeed rape is perfectly rational and natural in terms of evolutionary psychology. Yet who really believes this? Who does not feel moral outrage? Who lives their life this way?
Why do some self-proclaimed atheists on this thread get their panties in a wad when I say that atheists have no basis for a universally valid moral code? If God is a fiction and can’t be proven but so-called atheists claim that morality and human rights exists, free-floating in some metaphysical ether, then these atheists have just replaced God with morality and we are having a merely semantic discussion. In my mind to deny God is, like Nietzsche, to deny metaphysics altogether. So I say to the atheists here: welcome the complete freedom of your denial, embrace the void of disbelief, hug the Ubermench and sneer at the weak herd wallowing in its slave morality.
Rejoice: God is dead and all is permitted!
Thomas the Wraith on August 23, 2007 at 2:16 PM
IOW, have faith in me, rich young man.
Your sheep/goats passage does not support your point. It is not even remotely clear whether the sheep are righteous because of these good works or that they performed the good works because they were righteous. To clear this up one must go to other passages (he who believes in Me though he were dead yet shall he live, etc).
You and Dan Barker are not the first people in history to discover these “inconsistencies”. These are just cheap gotchas that have been satisfactorily addressed.
You can’t read the Bible like it’s a newspaper and that it was written yesterday.
jdpaz on August 23, 2007 at 2:16 PM
Nice try…take a class in Apolgetics. You seem to be confused as to why and when Jesus says things…even the simplest most basic. And this verse is one of the most basic. One of the first ten or twelve you learn in seminary.
Hey guys, Loundry is a troll, he does not have an understanding of the basic teachings of the NT, let alone the correlation to the OT. Even when his errors are pointed out he continues. He is just arguing to argue, he has no knowledge, this last post proves it. With basic knowledge or research he would have never used that argument. Religion 101.
Don’t waste your time.
Don’t feed the troll.
right2bright on August 23, 2007 at 2:19 PM
Many if not all of these objections are covered by a thoughtful guy here.
jdpaz on August 23, 2007 at 2:21 PM
Money talks, BS walks.
right2bright on August 23, 2007 at 2:22 PM
Metaphysically, the stakes are higher.
Epistemologically, the area or subject of “interpretation” is the same with any book, text, etc. It takes hard work.
ColtsFan on August 23, 2007 at 2:23 PM
Referring to the comments of an atheist or skeptic as “BS,” in no way advances the cause of Jesus Christ. Nor does it make arguments for the rationality of Christianity any stronger.
It makes us look silly.
ColtsFan on August 23, 2007 at 2:25 PM
Thank you for your recent comment [Loundry on August 23, 2007 at 12:19 PM], but I do want to reply to the one above.
Friend, I do think you have Faith. In fact, I think you possibly have a much stronger Faith than I do. I have watched you defend that Faith vehemently in spite of many who would have tried to convice you otherwise in this thread.
But I do think that having faith in Christ is a good way to live. It prods me to better myself, to learn, to treat others with gentleness and respect, to try to set my selfish will aside for the benefit of others, to honor my Father who is perfect in all things, to be sober in thought and judgment, to stand firm in what I believe, to be a good husband and father, and, gosh, so much more! Am I perfect? No. My faith understands. I always have the chance to try again.
Yet I do not have your faith. Your faith, I am afraid, would leave me bankrupt.
I have a faith in what I believe to be IN something. I have a faith which you believe to be IN nothing.
You have a faith in what you believe to be nothing, and I perceive it to be very strong. I just have a hard time with that.
BNCurtis on August 23, 2007 at 2:34 PM
There’s a couple more Bible verses you might find interesting.
“For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil.” 1 Ti 6:10
And concerning your charge of “BS”:
“But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man ‘unclean.’” Mat 15:18, words of Christ
Loundry on August 23, 2007 at 2:34 PM
Meta-epistama-whatever! Is the possibility of burning forever and ever in hell real or not?
Loundry on August 23, 2007 at 2:37 PM
I’m too fond of you to generate a strong rejoinder. Quite frankly, your kindness defeated me.
Loundry on August 23, 2007 at 2:40 PM
BNCurtis,
I have enjoyed reading your comments in the past.
I appreciate the courtesy and respect which you have shown to others who may disagree with you.
Thanks for your comment above about “faith.” In the history of epistemology, William James, in his devastating critique of Clifford’s Maxim, showed that everyone has faith. I think Soren Kierkegaard and the existentialists later went on to demonstrate the practical implications of this fact, namely that everyone, including the so-called secular “Free Thinker” has faith, indeed a magnitude of faith that is not based on certainty or even evidence.
Everyone has faith. We know that from the history of epistemology. The question is in the object of our faith.
ColtsFan on August 23, 2007 at 2:40 PM
Thank you. Well put.
Thomas the Wraith on August 23, 2007 at 2:44 PM
Faith is “belief in spite of insufficient or contradictory evidence”, and it is wrong. The “Everyone has faith!” (sometimes it comes out as, “You, as an atheist, have even *more* faith than I have as a Christian!”) is a typical Christian response to being challenged about the irrationality of their own faith.
Christian: Jesus is both fully man and fully God.
Skeptic: How can that possibly be true? God is eternal while man is temporal, God is perfect while man is imperfect, God is infinite while man is finite, etc.
Christian: That’s the mystery of faith! Isn’t it wonderful? Just believe and everything will be fine. (The tithing basket is right over there.)
Loundry on August 23, 2007 at 2:51 PM
Loundry,
I cannot control how you “find” things, I can tell you that nothing in my post was intended to be “trying very hard to make this all an issue” of your character.
You said:
I then asked:
You responded with:
And:
With those statements and claims in mind, lets take a look at the basic Newtonian laws of physics. I am sure you are aware of the fact that there is evidence that clearly contradicts these laws. Therefore, you have said that it is “wrong” for you to believe in those laws, unless YOU personally judge that the evidence for them is sufficient. And your judgment determines whether you believe in them or not, even if someone else claims you are incompetent to make such a judgment. Okay, so then lets go on from there.
I next wondered whether you thought there was anyone who was a better judge of things than you yourself are. In this example, do you believe there are others whose expertise is such that, depite the fact that there is evidence that contradicts the basic Newtonian laws of physics, would you still accept their claims that those basic laws still determine how things operate in your life?
Your answer was:
Which would seem to indicate that you do believe there are at least times when others are a better judge of things than you are and would accept their expertise in regards to things like those laws of physics. But then you immediately contradict that with:
Which would indicate that, even if someone may be a better judge of things than you are, may have more expertise than you yourself do, YOU still get to be the one to decide whether they are right or not (or whether you want to believe them or not). Which leaves you, as I previously pointed out, as “God” of your own world. A world where nothing exists outside of what you have created by way of your “belief” in what you judge to be true or not true.
You have now added:
Can you see the clear contradiction in what you’ve said?
I would offer up the proposition that there are things which exists, which do effect your life and will continue to do so, no matter how hard you want to believe they don’t exist.
Just like those pesky laws of physics, whether you judge them to be true or not makes little difference to them, that giant rock falling towards your head is still going to obey them so it might be best for you to move out of the way instead of trying to wish it away.
Fatal on August 23, 2007 at 3:03 PM
I don’t believe atheism is incompatible with a robust non-natural metaethics, but let’s grant, for the sake of argument, that it is. A friend of mine is a neuroscientist and an atheist. He thinks moral philosophy is a crock. According to him, our moral attitudes are easily explainable. Some of these sentiments are the product of human evolution (reciprocal altruism, for instance), and some are the product of culture and tradition (which religion has played a significant part in shaping). He thinks that is all there is to morality - evolved and/or cultural responses of approval or revulsion. There is no metaphysical fact of the matter about people or states of affairs being objectively “good” or “bad”.
Despite this view, he lives a life not much different from yours or mine. He donates to charity, feels obligations towards certain people, is enraged by certain actions, believes certain practices should be legislated against, and so on. Is this inconsistent with his ethical outlook? I fail to see why. Why should rejecting the coherence of absolute normativity force him into relativism or hedonism? He hears about female genital mutilation and feels revulsion. His attitude isn’t “Well, that’s their culture.” It’s “That is barbaric and it must be stopped.” Of course he knows that they were raised thinking it was proper. His objection to it isn’t because it violates some deep moral rule. His objection is that he finds it extremely repulsive and he cannot bear the idea that there are people who condone and practice it. Why is this stance unavailable to him?
In a way he just “does what he feels like”, but what he feels includes the pull of obligation, sympathy, pity, revulsion, and a host of other emotions we associate with “moral” behavior. And I daresay this is true of most of us. So the answer to questions like “If you’re an atheist, what’s stopping you from raping and killing for fun?” would be “These actions are deeply abhorrent to me, and violate the values that I choose to live my life by.”
So what is inconsistent about the way my friend lives his life? Why should disbelief in the moral law (as traditionally conceived) entail that one cannot (or should not) lead a “moral” life, and indeed enjoin others to do so? Incidentally, my friend often uses moral language (e.g. he might tell his son “It’s wrong not to share”). If you question him about this, he’ll readily admit that all he’s trying to do is influence peoples’ behavior, and moral language is very useful for this, because we are acculturated to respond to it in certain ways. He doesn’t actually believe that the terms he uses refer to anything.
Jazzman on August 23, 2007 at 3:05 PM
No. The historic Christian position denies your definition of “faith.” Biblical Christianity is hostile to any form of “Irrationality”.
A more accurate definition of “faith” defined by the historic Christian position is this verse.
This verse suggests a child-like,humble dependence on the object of faith, namely God. God is the object.
I have already suggested a brief outline for how a Christian believer could rationally defend belief in God here and
also here.
The Incarnation is that God took on a human nature. The concept of an eternal being taking on a finite human nature does not at all involve contradiction or logical inconsistency at all.
It is a mystery to me, as a Christian believer, simply because I in my experience on this planet have never seen it (Incarnation) done before.
But ultimate reality is not restricted to just my experience. Or even experience on this planet Earth.
The Incarnation is not a contradiction, nor does it involve any logical inconsistency.
ColtsFan on August 23, 2007 at 3:13 PM
I should mention that I do believe that religion actually makes many people better human beings than they otherwise would have been. It also makes many people worse human beings than they otherwise would have been. I do not know which number is greater. None of this is based on evidence, it’s just a hunch.
As for myself, I admit the possibility that if I were religious I would be a more caring and compassionate person. However, my atheism is entrenched enough that I don’t foresee a conversion anytime soon, so I guess I’ll never know what Christian (or, slightly more likely, Buddhist) Jazzman would be like.
Jazzman on August 23, 2007 at 3:16 PM
I really enjoyed your comment.
I wish you would have more free time to join our discussions in philosophy.
You have made excellent, well-reasoned points, which I will try to respond to.
ColtsFan on August 23, 2007 at 3:17 PM
I agree with you, after all, there are Pluralistic Naturalists who readily admit that the world is populated by non-natural entities.
One response is that most atheists, according to their literature, try to convince fellow atheists to abandon their “queer embrace”of ***non-natural normativity***.
I say “queer” only because many atheists themselves have noted that normativity (taken by itself) is a very “queer” or “very odd” in a naturalistic, atheistic world. It is similar to having a conversation with friends in your living room watching Peyton Manning do his usual Superman acts, and ignoring the Pink Elephant in the corner at the very same time. It is just “odd” or “queer.” And I am only repeating what atheists themselves have said about the inconsistency of fellow atheists making room for “normativity” in their philosophy. It is just odd, out of place.
More to come in a second…. :-)
ColtsFan on August 23, 2007 at 3:25 PM
You write, “A friend of mine is a neuroscientist and an atheist. He thinks moral philosophy is a crock. According to him, our moral attitudes are easily explainable.”
But this sounds like your friend is NOT a Pluralistic Naturalist. He is a Scientific Naturalist. He is a reductionist. Your friend is a Scientific Naturalist because he believes “Scientism” allows an atheistic believer to “reduce” or “eliminate” moral facts or moral data (example, “rape is intrinsically wrong”) to natural facts (example, reducing moral facts to psychology or behavior or to evolution).
There are many philosophical problems with Scientific Naturalism.
You write,
Here is my response:
1.) I never want to comment on the personal or moral attributes of your friend. He sounds like a great guy. I never want to discuss personalities. Instead, I only wish to discuss the validity of competing worldviews.
2.) Here is the key: You write, “Why should rejecting the coherence of absolute normativity force him into relativism or hedonism?”
Quick answer: because your friend lacks the tools to do what he in his mind wants to do. He wants to say, “female genital mutiliation” is morally evil. The problem is that his worldview of scientific naturalism prevents him from uttering that statement.
ColtsFan on August 23, 2007 at 3:36 PM
Very interesting. Thanks for the reply. But as I see it he has no basis for saying the FGM is wrong everywhere and always. If morality is a crock, then FGM is just another cultural practice in a world of diverse and varied practices. It is, objectively speaking, no better or worse than any other because we have no vantage point from which to judge. Sure he feels revulsion because it’s an alien practice, much like eating bugs. His revulsion is the subjective act of an outsider (again much like watching someone eat live worms). But on what basis is FGM wrong? (It can’t be wrong can it, since moral philosophy is crock? Wrongness is an empty concept.)
What mosts interests me about your post is “Despite this view, he lives a life not much different from yours or mine.” Your friend, like most atheists, seems to live very much as if God exists. He displays all the characteristic of a theist. He employs moral language and performs moral acts and deplores moral crimes. So it seems that his atheism is merely an intellectual exercise, a parlor game, a way to avoid what he sees as an intellectually indefensible position. But from the neck down, so to speak, he is no different than his ancestors who were, in all likelihood, believers.
Your friend seems to be a Theoretical Atheist but a Functional Theist. This to me is an interesting and problematical position. Shouldn’t denying the existence of God have some effect on one’s behaviour? Your friend’s answers to the deepest and most profound questions of human existence are the oppposite of traditional theism yet his answers seem to have no impact on the way he lives his life. Indeed, from the outside looking in he appears to be a theist. Does this not strike anyone as a bit strange?
Your friend is not alone. I have friends who are table-thumping atheists and friends who are regular church-going believers but the former, with the exception of church, act just like the latter. Why is this? Your friend “does what he feels like” but what he feels like is indistinguishable from the behaviour of a theist. Isn’t that remarkable?
Thomas the Wraith on August 23, 2007 at 3:40 PM
No, He doesn’t as clearly indicated in the passage you cited.
If anyone could “earn” eternal life, then they would have to do it by keeping all the commandments, which is what Jesus said here:
(As an aside, when Jesus said only “One” is good, he was referencing God and by answering the question HE was acknowledging that He was God)
So, yes, God Himself said that you can earn your way to eternal life by keeping all the commandments, surely that is not a surprise to anyone who knows anything about the Christian religion. Unfortunately, no one can do that and the young man was being untruthful when he claimed:
If he had been truthful, the conversation would have ended there and he would have walked away content in the certainty that he would gain eternal life. And, if that was the end of the story, you would be correct, salvation would be “works” based and no one would ever attain it.
But the story doesn’t end there.
That is exactly what DID happen. Because having claimed to have kept all the commandments, the young man obviously didn’t beleive he was going to gain eternal life, because he went on to ask:
At which point Jesus did just what you said He should do, He said:
The young man may gain “treasure in heaven” if he were to sell his possessions and give to the poor, just as we can all earn “treasure” in heaven by giving to the poor, etc. However, to actually get into heaven you have to “follow me”. Which clearly entails faith, not works. Faith that in “following” Jesus we will become “perfect” and thus gain “eternal life”.
So if you were just waiting for Jesus to say “You gain Salvation by having faith in me”, He just did.
Fatal on August 23, 2007 at 3:41 PM
The historic Christian position is NOT,
“if you are an atheist, then you MUST automatically be a rapist, Adolf Hitler, mean-spirited, ugly killing machine..”
That is not the historic Christian position. And when so-called, “professing” Christians argue like that, they are simply mistaken and false. And they are also guilty of sinning against Jesus Christ because they are smearing the same people that Jesus Christ says to respectfully share the Gospel to.
Some of the most brilliant thinkers have been atheists.
And the Apostle Paul himself, in Acts 17:18, has interacted with atheist worldviews dominant in his time.
Your atheist friend, a brilliant neurosurgeon, simply does not have the philosophical tools to make any moral statements. He can’t, not because He himself is a moral monster. He can’t make any moral statements simply because his worldview prevents him from doing so.
Scientific naturalists as people CAN indeed count, but their worldview cannot account for the laws of morality, laws of logic.
Of course scientific naturalists make all kind of moral statements every single day. But they are logically inconsistent with their worldview, which denies them the ability, upon pain of logical contradiction, to do so.
ColtsFan on August 23, 2007 at 3:47 PM
I am sorry what I say make you look silly. Read my other posts on “articles”, hebrew text, the description of “cud”, and “turning the other cheek” and see if those make you look silly.
I think those make atheists look silly.
Like most of the posts, people have a hard time reading, let alone understanding. Let me break it down for you.
Loundry said he knows more than most other people about apologetics, I disagreed and challenged him. To something that is measurable.
He stated he does not gamble then rambled on about saving souls or something inane.
My comment was to him, that if he can’t take a measuring stick, which would have been money to a charity (nothing to do with worshipping money, but as a yardstick), he responded with something you cannot measure.
Hence the money talks, BS walks. BTW, Jesus says the same thing basically in the quote he used about giving up money to the man (see the tie in?). Get it, money can be works or actions it is the measuring device, and the person who yaks, but won’t back up his talk with action walks away like the wealthy man did to Jesus. I thought the faithful would have seen the parallel, but I was wrong. I used him like Jesus used the wealthy man. When challenged to follow or learn, they walk away because the cost is to great to know the truth. Get it? sheesh.
Here is a question for you: What derogatory words did Jesus use to describe people who were hard of heart, or did not see the way. Or do you think he was so pure as to not to insult the non-believers. Do you think he never used insulting words? When a man has turned a deaf ear, and is defiant even when show he is obvioulsy wrong, did Jesus use worse words or more mild words then BS?
BTW, notice how he pulled out (probable googled) some verses regarding money, although they have nothing to do with me wanting the money but for charity. And the Matt verse, well he just has to go to school for that one. That is what I mean by not understanding Religion 101.
Like I said, he argues to hear himself argue, he has no context for the verses he uses. Don’t feed the troll.
right2bright on August 23, 2007 at 3:50 PM
Quoting from this excellent book, it was atheist J.L. Mackie who used the word, “queerness” (page 112 of above book) to describe non-natural entities.
ColtsFan on August 23, 2007 at 3:55 PM
What’s remarkable to me (as both myself and others have already pointed out in this thread) is that atheists are quick to condemn theism in all it’s forms and argue that it is “bad for people,” all the while offering ABSOLUTELY NO workable system that promotes or fulfills the cultivation of our social, political, economic, or spiritual needs. They offer NOTHING to improve our lot in life (for the betterment of mankind). All they do is viciously attack others that are trying to make a positive difference.
Atheists remind me of Thomas Paine. After the revolutionary war, some of the “founding fathers” held him in open contempt. The collective wisdom was that Paine knew how to incite a revolution and tear down the existing system (that was based on British rule), but when it came to “building something” (viz. the American Republic and it’s constitution) in its stead, Paine had nothing to offer.
My collie says:
Yeah. I know.
CyberCipher on August 23, 2007 at 4:09 PM
There have been many philosophers to tackle this same exact question. Their answers boil down to: morality comes from the self or from natural human reason. You don’t need a God or gods or a book to tell you what is right and wrong, you just need the capability to reason.
That was not my claim. I’d repeated myself at least 4 times over to make sure people understood that.
Morality can be proven. It’s a human invention. If I say something is good then that is morality; it may not be good to you, but subjectivity doesn’t conflict with proof. I have morality if I say something is good. True? It is a moral statement. What you’re talking about isn’t “morality,” but “objective morality.” I’d agree, being that I’m a subjectivist.
Awesome post.
It’s posts like these that’ll make me come back to this thread months from now just to reread people’s responses.
And it’s the words of Christians like you that muddy the waters and set up straw men. Morality isn’t a byproduct of your God, neither is human equality or human rights. You’d love to claim them as your own, of course, who wouldn’t?
I think your imagination of what “atheism” is is overly exaggerated to conform to your own biases.
Read a few atheist philosophers before you make claims like this. In fact, just read one: Hobbes. Sure, he supported a dictatorship, but he justified it, and he certainly made a case for morality derivative of humans. Just read him and almost all of your questions will become a moot point.
The difference being you won’t find an atheist attempting to covert the government of the United States or war with other “religions.” The difference being atheists won’t peddle their beliefs onto the masses. It’s perfectly okay to believe in an absolute moral code or “universal morality,” but it’s another thing entirely to claim there to be a heaven and hell for people who don’t follow your belief or that your belief is penultimate when you have no proof. There are literally thousands of differences between the religious who believe in “universal morality” and the nonreligious who believe in “universal morality,” but I’m not going to argue for either one.
Literally the most laughable thing in this entire thread. Loundry quotes you a passage from the very Bible you hold to be holy and you call him a troll for doing so. But it was expected, when confronted just try to ignore the problem and go back into your fragile bubble of faith.
Nonfactor on August 23, 2007 at 4:19 PM
Referring to the comments of an atheist or skeptic as “BS,” in no way advances the cause of Jesus Christ. Nor does it make arguments for the rationality of Christianity any stronger.
It makes us look silly.
ColtsFan on August 23, 2007 at 2:25 PM
ColtsFan on August 23, 2007 at 4:19 PM
I messed up with the blockquote above.
Here are my thoughts by ColtsFan
I’m not going to debate you on this.
The Bible states that we are to honor Christ with a respectful, charitable “tone and attitude” in our conversations, even with unbelievers. Jesus’s harshest words were directed not to unbelievers, rather, they were directed to those misguided people who called themselves professing “believers”. 1 Corinthians 5-6 states we as Christians are to judge those within the Church, not outside the Church. Inflammatory, hurtful, negative comments only distract from the God-honoring purpose of dialogue.
I get angry at so-called, “professing” Christians making ad hominem, unfair, personal attacks at skeptics or unbelievers. I wonder if really these “professing Christians” are just trolls for the other side, because they are so effective at being nasty and casting suspicion on the
greatest apologetic argument that an unbelieving world can see in practice. That is why Francis Schaeffer called “Christian love” the “Final Apologetical argument” in his books.
I have personally made many mistakes myself over the years concerning this same point.
I am still trying to apply this to my life, so that I may bring glory to God, despite my sins.
It is important that even the respectful tone and our humble attitude conveys to others that Jesus Christ Himself is the life-giving alternative to all other false, counterfeits which this temporary, finite world tries to offer in the name of “pleasure.”
ColtsFan on August 23, 2007 at 4:21 PM
I enjoyed your comment above.
ColtsFan on August 23, 2007 at 4:24 PM
For threads like these it would be helpful if HotAir could build a function to ignore certain posters. Alas … I must endure, as I predicted, the insults and name-calling of the inexplicably hostile and incoherent. Such is life.
Thomas the Wraith on August 23, 2007 at 4:26 PM
Jazzman,
Thanks for your earlier comment.
Was that clear or did it only encourage more confusion?
Would you want me to just focus on WHY Scientific Naturalists (who, while being nice, tax-paying, moral folks themselves as people) as a belief-system simply cannot make or even justify moral commands or moral statements?
Would that be helpful?
ColtsFan on August 23, 2007 at 4:30 PM
Fatal,
Instead of addressing any criticisms I’ve made against your religion, you’ve instead focused solely on my words which have little or nothing at all to do with your religion. I’ll respond to your last hectoring post, but my patience with you is wearing thin.
Precisely. Has a global warming proponent ever told you that global warming is real and that you are incompetent to make any kind of judgment about it? Perhaps that’s an example that you can relate to.
This is a standard Christian tactic when debating atheists. It has its roots in the Christian belief that “everyone worships something”, hence, I must “make myself into my own god” so that I can then be accused of idolatry. You are, by far, not the first Christian to try this tactic on me. *yawn*
No. Elucidate it for all of us to see.
Loundry on August 23, 2007 at 5:00 PM
The reason I responded as I did was because your challenge was an attempt to turn the discussion away from the criticism of your religion. My criticisms of your religion are valid. Why do I keep insisting this?
When someone asks you, “Why doesn’t Loundry like Christianity?” Your normal response would be, “He’s too busy making himself his own god”, or “He hates god”, or “He has had a bad experience with some un-Christianlike behavior”.
My goal is to get you to understand me well enough that when someone asks you, “Why doesn’t Loundry like Christianity?”, you’ll be able to answer, “He doesn’t like it because he thinks the sin-nature ideology that is inherent in Christianity is harmful.”
That’s really the only thing I’m trying to get you to understand. You can discount every other thing I write for all I care.
Loundry on August 23, 2007 at 5:09 PM
The Biblical position is Romans 3:23, which states that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of god. All atheists, as well as all non-Christians, fall short of the glory of god, exactly like ugly killing machines do and exactly for the same reason: their inherent “sin nature”. I’m no better or worse than Pol Pot, because Jesus is the only thing that matters, right?
I think that ideology sucks. It’s biblical and it’s sucky.
Loundry on August 23, 2007 at 5:17 PM
I missed this ridiculous post. What Greek text did your bibles use to translate?
You said you don’t need Strong’s, which one do you use? You cannot read a bible that did not come from the original Hebrew and Greek, or at least I didn’t know that until you stated it. Which one would you recommend?
And your poor comment about using different words, they used “cud” because that most approximated what was said 2,000 years ago, re-read my comment and the Hebrew analysis and you will see how far off you are…sheesh, your comments are getting more stupid as time goes on, you are desperate…fingers getting tired of Googling?
right2bright on August 23, 2007 at 5:19 PM
I affirm the Biblical position.
I was trying to be charitable towards you and other skeptics, and I was trying to avoid the common ad hominem arguments.
Does God exist?
That is the main question?
If God does exist, then what is God’s nature?
Everything flows out of these two questions.
I affirm Romans 3:23, and that from the perspective of God alone, ColtsFan is not “more righteous” than anybody else due to my human ability or external behavior.
Of course, you deny that. And you are permitted to deny it because your worldview teaches that. I understand that.
That is why I have provided rational evidence suggesting that all forms of atheism are both metaphysically and epistemologically false.
ColtsFan on August 23, 2007 at 5:35 PM
Your arguments were admirably clear and quite provocative. I have a (characteristically) long response in the works, but for now, work beckons. I will post a response shortly.
I should clarify that I myself am not a reductionist. But I am defending reductive naturalism against the charge that it is rationally inconsistent with moral behavior.
Here’s a precis of the upcoming response: My friend is a subjectivist universalist. He realizes that his moral code is subjective, it’s an expression of his own particular desires and connative attitudes, but he doesn’t believe that this entails that this code applies only to him. He holds everyone to these standards (even if their personal codes of conduct are different), and will work hard to ensure they’re met. So he is a universalist, not a relativist. I do not see why subjectivism and universalism are inconsistent, and if they aren’t, then his “moral” behavior is completely consistent with his naturalist beliefs. When he makes a moral statement, it is meant as an exhortation or a command, not as a report about the world. He would deny that the statement “Rape is evil”, as uttered by him, is either true or false. It is not meant to be a statement of fact, but a hidden exhortation intended to influence behavior or elicit an emotional response. It is no more amenable to evaluation as true or false than a command such as “Close the door!”
He would not be troubled by the fact that he can’t justify the existence of moral law, since he explicitly denies the existence of objective moral law. But what I am arguing is that this denial need not impinge on his behavior. His system of beliefs is completely consistent with moral behavior. If you ask him, in any particular case, why he is behaving in a certain way, he can provide a perfectly cogent justification.
For instance, suppose he is lecturing some African person on the evil of female genital mutilation. You ask him why he is doing this, and he will (probably) respond, “I find the practice abhorrent and wish to see it changed, and I realize that couching my objection in moral terms (such as the word ‘evil’) might have an impact on this person’s future behavior.” This seems like a perfectly good reason for his behavior, and it does not appeal to non-natural facts. A similar justification would be available for most actions we would call “moral”.
Well, it appears that I have been unable to constrain this “precis” to any reasonable length. Typical. Let it stand as my response, and let me know if the details are unclear. I am writing this fast in order to return to work, so I imagine clarity has suffered.
Jazzman on August 23, 2007 at 5:35 PM
I thought I took care of you a couple of posts ago. Let it go, you were taken apart in a debate, I would continue hiding if I were you.
None of you (nonfactor and Loundry) have spent any time studying the bible, it is apparent is the attempt to pull out quotes that are completely out of context. To the point of being embarrassing to respond. In fact to respond would be impossible. It would be like someone saying we never landed on the moon (and there are people who believe such a thing) and trying to convince them of the obvious. You are like the truthers of 9/11. Always a weird explanation. But if a real scientest gave testimony (and they have) they still cling to their truthers. I have laid out many facts that dispute your quotes (not mine from from leading apoligists, and hebrew texts) and you still deny or pull out some obtuse text that has no relation.
It would be like taking words from a speech of Bush, individual words, and making a new speech and then saying “but he said them”. I did that once to AP, and the post was that he was a child molester. He said the words, just not in those contexts.
Just what are your credentials (both of you) for preaching your apologitics?
It is like saying to a kid 3 plus 3 is six and he says not its not, and even after showing him he says, but 3 times 3 is 9 so how could it be six also, they both have two threes.
I can see why you are both athiests. How lucky you are to live in a world that faith has built.
right2bright on August 23, 2007 at 5:36 PM
Jazzman,
I will send you that fat check in the mail for the nice compliment.
:–)
I am familiar with “emotivism” as a branch of non-cognitivism concerning moral theories.
But I await your response.
I do sincerely appreciate the depth of your comments.
May I please encourage you to join me over at
Lion of Judah-Journal?
I do not always check HotAir daily, but I try to go to Lion of Judah-Journal where I am an occasional guest blogger.
Your comments and contributions would be appreciated in the future.
Take care for now.
ColtsFan on August 23, 2007 at 5:41 PM
Incidentally, neither my friend nor I deny that traditional Judeao-Christian morality plays a large part in his belief system. No doubt many of the beliefs he has are a product of his upbringing in a Christian community. In that sense, he has Christianity to thank for a large proportion of his values. He did not generate them suo moto. This goes a long way towards explaining why he behaves a lot like believing Christians, but I do not see that it threatens his philosophical naturalism.
Jazzman on August 23, 2007 at 5:43 PM
I usually use the NIV, as that is what biblegateway.com defaults to. Let me know if you think the NIV is crap. You can choose the battleground as long as it’s the Bible, for that is where I prefer to stay.
Furthermore, I notice your attempts to get us out of talking about scripture and your continued personal attacks. More “Agape”, I suppose.
And the English word “cud” most approximates what, exactly? If it is NOT a cud, then then “rabbits chew the cud” is saved, but the other ruminants are now chewing something else. If it IS a cud, then you’re back into the “rabbits chew the cud” falsehood. So in Deut 14 it mentions a bunch of ruminants chewing a “cud” and also a rabbit chewing a “cud”. Is the “cud” in Deut 14 a cud or not?
But, my god, I can’t believe someone was accusing me of being stuck on the cud. Are you not aware of the many, many other problems with scripture? To wit:
“There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground.” Lev 11:21
Which winged creatures walk on all fours? Pegasuses?
“There are some that only chew the cud or only have a split hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you.” Lev 11:4
Camels do NOT have a split hoof? Since when?
“And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.” John 14:13-14, words of Christ
Talk about unfulfilled expectations! You can ask Jesus for *anything* in his name and he will do it. In theory.
In fact, Jesus encouraged this kind of slothful pleading as a kind of lifestyle:
Furthermore,
“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal.” Mat 6:19, words of Christ
And naturally, why should you worry about tomorrow or store up treasures on earth? Just ask Jesus for it in his name, and he will do it!
Loundry on August 23, 2007 at 5:57 PM
I understand your point.
Current formulations of modern day American atheism are dependent, or derive from a cultural, historical legacy inherited from a largely Judeo-Christian intellectual framework.
I like Allahpundit. I think he is really cool.
But his “Right-leaning, libertarian, anti-censorship, pro-guns, anti-Thought Police, pro-Capitalism,” particular version of atheism is markedly different and radically “out of step” with many Atheists. Why does Allahpundit the atheist believe in his particular version of atheism? Why not another version of atheism (the more common one) steeped in Left wing political philosophy?
I think he is the one who is more qualified to answer that question better than me.
I am only pointing out that the dying, Judeo-Christian legacy in the West, particularly in America, at least contributed “the fertile intellectual soil” out of which most Right-Leaning, libertarian atheists like Allahpundit grew and sprouted out of. He may be an atheist, but his political philosophy is very similar to Christians, more so, than other fellow atheists.
Sometimes I am concerned that Allah’s desire to “de-theologize” the HotAir audience may in fact, over time, over a few generations, contribute to more Left-leaning atheists, instead of Right-leaning atheists. I am not sure if he even sees this.
After all, most atheists do not share Allahpundit’s Right-leaning philosophy.
But I welcome his articles and comments.
I agree that the above is the key issue on the table for future discussion.
ColtsFan on August 23, 2007 at 6:05 PM
ColtsFan,
Regarding your comment about Schaeffer above; his small book, The Mark of the Christian can be read online at the link. It’s a profound book that affected me greatly when I first read it years ago.
INC on August 23, 2007 at 6:17 PM
Jazzman -
Your friend “realizes that his moral code is subjective, it’s an expression of his own particular desires and connative attitudes,
“[B]ut he doesn’t believe that this entails that this code applies only to him. He holds everyone to these standards (even if their personal codes of conduct are different), and will work hard to ensure they’re met.”
And “When he makes a moral statement, it is meant as an exhortation or a command, not as a report about the world. It is not meant to be a statement of fact, but a hidden exhortation intended to influence behavior or elicit an emotional response.”
Please this in the spirit it’s offered but this description of morality sounds like: Your friends own desires and attitudes express themselves as his moral commands that apply to everyone everywhere. Is that morality?
Thomas the Wraith on August 23, 2007 at 6:26 PM
Thanks for your comment.
As a matter of fact, I have that book……….right here.
That was the same book I was earlier referring to concerning “Final Apologetic.”
I find that as my personal library increases, my memory of book titles decreases.
Or it could simply be that hair loss is a cause.
ColtsFan on August 23, 2007 at 6:35 PM
To all HotAir.com readers,
I have created a new thread. Your comments and differing viewpoints are welcome on this philosophical question: can Reductive Naturalists account for morality?
ColtsFan on August 23, 2007 at 6:50 PM
ColtsFan, I thought perhaps you had seen it in its original format (I believe) as an appendix to his The Church at the End of the Twentieth Century.
Between my husband and I, we have many old shabby copies of Schaeffer.
I know what you mean about memory. I hate remembering a phrase or paragraph and then trying to nail down the source book. Sometimes it’s an idea and I know who thought of it, but I can’t quite remember where it is.
INC on August 23, 2007 at 6:53 PM
Thanks Geckomon. You just about summed it up.
What a painfully stupid thread.
Newsflash: there is either a God or there isn’t. None of you actually know; all of you are operating from a blind, irrational insistence that you’re right.
All I see here is more proof that atheism is a fundamentalist religion, more proof that Christians tend to care more about arguing their faith than living it, and absolute proof that discussion between the two groups of the faithful is always nothing but - wait for it - a bunch of hot air.
Continue the tired conversation. Hey, maybe this will be the one time out of the other ten billion on the Internet that you’ll actually respect each other and find The Answer To Everything.
Jesus wept.
Professor Blather on August 23, 2007 at 6:57 PM
761 com