In a world where human desires and interests inevitably conflict, eliminating religion’s yardstick for human behavior does nothing more than give license to the strong to exploit the weak. After all, it might be “good” for A (and A’s family) to force B into servitude. We know, however, that it wouldn’t be right. How? Through religious tenets like the Golden Rule, and the moral truth that all men are created equal before God (and without a creator, it’s easy to adopt a theory of “natural inferiority” that rationalizes exploitation).

Atheists can try to popularize concepts like “goodness” without religion, but either they’re simply putting a secularist gloss on inherently religous concepts, or they’re creating the conditions for the “war of all against all” where the only constraint on human behavior is what the strong can get away with.

Report comment to moderator

The way in which the Bush adminstration has rationalized and split hairs about torture, spying on its own populartion (widely endorsed by many here) is another example of the hugely flexible absolute values of Christianity.

The other point is that Christian conservative keep discovering new interpretations and declaring changes that have been forced on them as their own idea in the first place. Inter-racial marriag and women’s suffrage for example. Gay marriage is on the way. Christians will be dragged kicking and screaming into accepting it. At some point they will declare it their own idea.

Report comment to moderator

The problem with this is that you only believe your moral ideas come from an “Objective Infinite Person.” That is the unprovable presupposition that underlies it.

I submit that because various people who claim to believe in the same OIP come to drastically different moral conclusions on all but a small number of largely universal ones, your system is every bit as relative as the atheist’s is.

Case in point: Some Christians say that homosexuality is ok and that the scriptural prohibitions against it were intended to apply only in certain times and not universally. Other Christians say those passages are binding, and some even go so far as to say one cannot be a Christian and not condemn homosexuality.

So does God condemn homosexuality? The answer depends on which follower of that God you ask.

The few core moral ideas that all Christians would agree to — no murder, no theft, no adultery — are not limited to Christianity but are reflected in most (though not all) of the moral systems ever codified.

My point is that ALL moral systems are relative. Even those that claim to come from an external God have only the pre-chosen belief of their adherents to base that upon, and rarely will you find cases where all adherents agree on just what the rules are.

Report comment to moderator

My remark was directed towards those who are critical of people developing their own sense of right and wrong and being good for goodness sake. It takes a lot of conceit on the part of individuals relying on an external Good to critique those who do not resort to such a crutch.

at Humanism, and any other system which does not receive it’s moral ideas from an Objective Infinite Person, is a relative system which can be shown to be incoherent and illogical.

All moral systems are relative including those based on an Absolute. Unless the Absolute speaks to you directly when a decision needs to be made, its your interpretation that counts. And for those who rely on the institutional church for their decision making, a historical look at Christian morality will demonstrate change over time and re-interpretation of the Word.

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

However, my point was, and still is, that Humanism, and any other system which does not receive it’s moral ideas from an Objective Infinite Person, is a relative system which can be shown to be incoherent and illogical.
This is shown the first time we are outraged by an action of a person upon a stranger, or even more to the point, the actions of another impact us negatively. It’s not right that someone stole your car. It’s not right for people to steal. And you will not be convinced otherwise when it happens to you. One simply cannot live as though one’s morality is relative. We think a thing is wrong, and it’s wrong for everyone. To say otherwise simply begs the question.

Any truly relative system of morals is self-defeating. Who gets to say that something is wrong if all morality is relative? The majority? What if the majority is wrong? Who gets to say that the majority is wrong? Certainly not the minority.

The whole “protection of the minority” principle is undermined by relative morality. Indeed relative morality undermines itself.

This is why I say that Atheism is incoherent. It’s illogical to think that an impersonal universe “cares” about who lives, who dies, whether there is meaning, or truth, or morality. What is, simply is. If ones neighboring country decides to invade and kill all the inhabitants of your country, then so what? It’s no worse than a colony of ants stripping a wild pig down to the bones. There is absolutely no difference.

We certainly see no idea of mercy and forgiveness in “nature.” So where would we come up with the idea that morality is objective or absolute? You cannot derive it from that example. And you certainly won’t derive altruism from that example.

I can only conclude that Humanism, and all other forms of Atheism are not a good model for what we see around us. Christianity is much more descriptive of what we see around us.

Report comment to moderator

The point is that both Humanist and Christian choose to believe in something unprovable and derive moral ideas from it.

Report comment to moderator

Obviously you have no idea what you’re talking about (as usual.) Have you ever been to D.C.? There are churches all over the place. Big ones and small, protestant and Catholic.

There are at least 1,212 in the Yellow Pages.

“Hard to find?” Llamas are not the brightest of bulbs.

Report comment to moderator

I think this idea has it exactly backwards. Is it pride or humility to admit that oneself is finite and imperfect? – and to admit that for a moral system to be coherent (and objective), there must be One who is adequate to administer it?

It seems to me to be conceited to think that they can judge for everyone what is objective morality. Because in actual practice, the very moment you judge someone else, you’ve done exactly that.

Report comment to moderator

Was Abraham trying to appease God by sacrificing Isaac? Was he lying when he told his servants to wait with the animals until he and his son returned?

Or, being an old man and having experienced God’s faithfulness his entire life, did he simply believe God would work things out somehow, since God had said Abraham would have a multitude of descendants through Isaac?

I believe the latter, since that is exactly what happened. The whole episode also happens to be prophetic of another Father Who would offer up His only Son on that very mount.

Report comment to moderator