ProTheism

If anyone likes to be trapped in a box, I recommend joining the ranks of postmodernism (post-mo). J.P. Moreland defines post-mo in Truth, Contemporary Philosophy, and the Postmodern Turn as:

“As a philosophical standpoint, postmodernism is primarily a reinterpretation of what knowledge is and what counts as knowledge. More broadly, it represents a form of cultural relativism about such things as reality, truth, reason, value, linguistic meaning, the self and other notions. On a postmodernist view, there is no such thing as objective reality, truth, value, reason and so forth. All these are social constructions, creations of linguistic practices and, as such, are relative not to individuals, but to social groups that share a narrative.”

If anything were to tear down a foundation, post-mo does it like no other. I often hear Christians engage postmodern thinkers in the Church through “dialogues.” However, this seems to have been, at least thus far, unproductive. Postmodernism seems to box a person into their own language construct. All values, concepts and meaning are created through your esoteric community, which you cannot escape. This invisible barrier of social deterministic structure and language confine you from other communities; nothing can be communicated in a meaningful way. What’s interesting though is that the post-mo wants us to understand this, as if there is a secret trap door that only they can crawl through and correct you when you’re wrong. But they do this because people, in reality, don't act as if post-mo is true; it’s just lip service.

J.P Moreland has expressed his strong opposition toward post-mo. He states that “[N]ot only are postmodern views of truth and knowledge confused, but postmodernism is an immoral and cowardly viewpoint such that persons who love truth and knowledge, especially disciples of the Lord Jesus, should do everything they can to heal the plague that postmodernism has and inevitably does leave” (Ibid). Now those are strong words, but I think within the context Christianity, Scripture and meaning, he has warrant for intense concern. Post-mo philosophers and theologians; however, fancy their language penitentiary view enough argue in volumes of books in attempt to persuade people outside their ‘community’. Hence, on its face, post-mos’ in action seems self-referentially incoherent.

I particularly like the way Plantinga articulates post-mo as a position with out any real substance:

As we are often told nowadays, we live in a postmodern era; and postmodernists pride themselves on rejecting the classical foundationalism that we all learned at our mother's knee. Classical foundationalism has enjoyed a hegemony, a near consensus in the West from the Enlightenment to the very recent past. And according to the classical foundationalist, our beliefs, at least when properly founded, are objective in a double sense. The first sense is a Kantian sense; what is objective in this sense is what is not merely subjective, and what is subjective is what is private or peculiar to just some persons. According to classical foundationalism, well-founded belief is objective in this sense; at least in principle, any properly functioning human beings who think together about a disputed question with care and good will, can be expected to come to an agreement. Well-founded belief is objective in another sense as well: it has to do with, is successfully aimed at, objects, things, things in themselves, to borrow a phrase. Well-founded belief is often or unusually adequate to the thing; it has an adequatio ad rem. There are horses, in the world, and my thought of a given horse is indeed a thought of that horse. Furthermore, it is adequate to the horse, in the sense that the properties I take the horse to have are properties it really has. That it has those properties - the ones I take it to have - furthermore, does not depend upon me or upon how I think of it: the horse has those properties on its own account, independent of me or anyone else. My thought and belief is therefore objective in that it is centered upon an object independent of me; it is not directed to something I, as a subject, have construed or in some other way created.

Now what is characteristic of much postmodern thought is the rejection of objectivity in this second sense - often in the name of rejecting objectivity in the first sense. The typical argument for postmodern relativism leaps lightly from the claim that there is no objectivity of the first sort, to the claim that there is none of the second. As you have no doubt noticed, this is a whopping non sequitur; that hasn't curbed its popularity in the least. Classical foundationalism, so the argument runs, has failed: we now see that there is no rational procedure guaranteed to settle all disputes among people of good will; we do not necessarily share starting points for thought, together with forms of argument that are sufficient to settle all differences of opinion. That's the premise. The conclusion is that therefore we can't really think about objects independent of us, but only about something else, perhaps constructs we ourselves have brought into being. Put thus baldly, the argument does not inspire confidence; but even if we put it less baldly, is there really anything of substance here? In any event, by this route too we arrive at the thought that there isn't any such thing as truth that is independent of us and our thoughts. The idea seems to be that objectivity in the first, Kantian sense, necessarily goes with objectivity in the second, external sense, so that if our thought isn't objective in the first sense, then it isn't objective in the second sense either. And what has happened within at least some of so-called postmodernisms is that the quite proper rejection of the one - a rejection that would of course have received the enthusiastic support of Kuyper and Dooyeweerd - has been confused with the rejection, the demise of the other - an idea that Kuyper and Dooyweerd would have utterly rejected.

Alvin Plantinga, "Christian Philosophy at the End of the Twentieth Century," The Analytic Theist: An Alvin Plantinga Reader, pp. 332-334

As time passes though, it is my impromptu suspicion that the post-mo pendulum will fade back into the oblivion of ideas that arise on the pendulum, but swing right back away-- or --for the sake of Christians, at least down to the depths outside the veil of value.

Labels: Christianity, Knowledge, Postmodernism, Truth

BF:While I generally agree with your post, let me make a few comments. 1) Don’t expect Christians to roll over with their tail between their legs every time their challenged

I’d not expect any such thing from anyone. Sounds like a pre-judgment to me. When does ‘turn the other cheek’ ever apply?

2) Christians are human too, we may have our occasional slips, but so do you and everyone else.

Hey, no argument there.

3) There are occasions where calling reprehensible arguments what they are (insert whatever ‘belittling’ comment here) is necessary insofar as they are justified

Fine, then call the argument that, not the person. What qualifies as ‘reprehensible’, then? Genocide and pedophilia are reprehensible: abortion is not. Hatred is reprehensible. Murder is reprehensible.

4) both atheist and theist would do better if they lighten up and develop thicker skin.

Agreed. However: if you walk past a crazy person once, they make threatening, belittling comments, you never see that derelict again, well, easy enough to shrug it off. But you meet that person every day in some way, and this person does it again, and again, and again, until you dread the next day? This is an illustrative example.

Also note that as you said “Atheists say they constantly are reduced to stereotypes” and provided a supporting quote. Well, theists are constantly reduces to stereo types too:Quote: It's difficult to have a conversation with a theist, when the automatic assumption is that we're all 'tools of Satan', 'losers', the auto-assumption of 'self-worship', the 'lost soul', 'there are no atheists in foxholes', etc, etc, ad nauseum. So you’re making a stereotype ascription to theists as well.

In some ways: it’s also a matter of observation. It’s one of the many items that turned me away from the belief systems of religion altogether. Note that I avoided the blanket statement here: there IS an automatic assumption tacked on, for most. Note that I have two xtian friends, so no, not every xtian does this: but enough to make it a pattern.

I respect the fact that you want to eliminate the ad homs, but let’s not act as if you (or more often other atheistic blogs) have set the standard of the harmonious exchange of ideas when you bash, belittle, disparage, mock, and ridicule what Christians believe and the Bible ad nauseum (note this especially in comment sections, where dialogue occurs).

I’m not acting that way at all. I’m pointing out, that most (no, not all) of your side of the debate behaves quite poorly. YOU folks are the ones claiming higher moral ground: act accordingly.Now why do you think that is? Could it be a knee-jerk response, much like the one white folks encounter, when they seem to look at a black person cross-eyed, and the black person wants to beat the snot out of them? Whenever a minority comes of age, whenever a historically silenced group of folks finally find their voice, there’s going to be acrimony, there will always be anger. Let’s face facts: not until the 20th century, has an atheist even had the ability to speak out, or up. Note the L.A riots (blacks): or the Harvey Milk debacle (gays). Face it: your side has had power for far too long, and has abused it. This is the backlash. This is the aftermath of many decades of bottled resentment. I’m not saying it’s right: but when you fling feces and call foul, you spit on a person and not expect the same treatment in kind, well then, good luck changing human nature.

Don’t get me wrong RA, I’m all for intellectual freedom, and I support your liberty to disagree, reject, and criticize any belief system including Christianity. But if I go through your atheist blog roll and read the posts what will I find? From a Christian perspective, I see Christianity, for lack of better words, shit on. Equally, there are dumb atheists, and there are dumb theists, and there are smart atheists, and there are smart theists, sometimes whichever boat you’re in, you have to call it the way you see it.

See commentary above. Y’all made your bed: don’t complain to me if it’s a tad on the lumpy side.

On a side note, I see that you like to take the ‘moral high ground.’ I was wondering if you have posted on your system of morality, or are planning on doing so.

No, you have it all wrong. Again, your side likes to take the ‘moral high ground’. It’s a stumping point, which irritates me to no end, when few enough actually walk the talk. I’m more than willing to forgive the occasional slip, as we are all human, and prone to error. But your side always seems to do it w/a certain amount of glee. Perhaps as mine does. But we don’t have a book of rules to tell us otherwise: YOU DO. Look up the concept of ‘agape’. No referral to tektonics, please: I find Holding’s ‘extenuating circumstances’ a little on the convenient side. As to morality? “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Note that that was espoused by JC, Hillel, and Confucius alike, so no accusations of ‘borrowing’, please. The Golden Rule suits me just fine. Read the post ‘Ahimsa’: I believe that fits it all very well. I don’t need a novel-length explanation of what I do, and why I do it. "Whoever imagines himself a favorite with God, holds otherpeople in contempt."Whenever a man believes that he has the exact truth from God,there is in that man no spirit of compromise. He has not themodesty born of the imperfections of human nature; he has thearrogance of theological certainty and the tyranny born of ignorantassurance. Believing himself to be the slave of God, he imitateshis master, and of all tyrants, the worst is a slave in power."-Ingersoll, Some Reasons Why
11:58 PM, April 05, 2006

"I find the vast (no hyperbole) majority of apologists to be egocentric, sophistic, spiteful malcontents, w/far too much time on their hands and convinced of their moral superiority"

bf said:"Christianity doesn’t teach that Christians are morally superior to non-Christians."Huh?What?Come again?Did I hear your lunacy right?Then why is the god of the bible so adamant that none may be worshipped but he?And why does he, by the proxy of his followers, wage war upon those who feel/think/live differenlty?Yeah, riddle me this...
10:34 AM, April 06, 2006

Now, regarding the “Christian Moral Code”: Christianity doesn’t teach that Christians are morally superior to non-Christians. It does teach, however, that Christians ought to advance moral ethical behavior (this is where we agree). However, the Bible also (since you brought it up) advances the periodic mocking to the opposing view point (1 Kings 18:27), and calls non-Christians foolish (1 Cor. 1:20) and fools (Rom 1:22) and corrupt (Psalm 14:1). The Bible also calls unbelievers wicked. And the passages you posted are misused.

Okay, so Kings, Elijah's mocking the prophets of Baal. Psalm 14:1 (don't even need to look that up) says that only a fool says there's no god.1 Corinthians 1:20 (King James Version)King James Version (KJV)20 - Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?&22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools,Sorry, but nowhere in any of those do I see a license for xtians to resort to mockery. I believe the phrase here, is 'cherry-picking'. & if you'd be so kind, show me how the passages I quoted were misused.

It seems that you want the Christians to be the wishy washy doormat that any atheist gets to walk all over because they don’t have a “book of rules” and theists do. While acrimony is justified for the atheist due to centuries of oppression (even when they have never personally experiences this historical oppression-if there was such), and the theist gets to respond with a cheesy smile while everything they believe to be sacred, holy, and personal gets shit on. This is more like the fallacy of self exclusion. How would you like it if someone slandered and spat in your mothers face (or someone close to you)? Well, imagine that feeling. I think that many Christians have done well—some not. I’m not arguing that you are completely unjustified; your frustrations are certainly warranted.

I would not expect any human being to subject themselves to having a welcome mat on their backs, thank you very much. As to being passionate about something sacred - I take your point. Freedom is my sacred cow, and the bill of rights, so understood.

You do however make some pretty strong moral claims:"I find the vast (no hyperbole) majority of apologists to be egocentric, sophistic, spiteful malcontents, w/far too much time on their hands and convinced of their moral superiority"

You realize, of course, that this can also be an honest assessment of the matter? If you read more of my posts, you'll probably find that I'm something of a hard ass. Atheist or theist. I am on record as having gone rounds w/more than 1 atheist. So if I see something wrong, I'm gonna say so. I don't care who you are, what you believe, if I think an opinion's a crock, or I find a commentary that I personally think is reprehensible, you (or the person who said it) is going to hear it. If the Shrub was an atheist, I'd STILL say he's an incompetent boob. Read my post, 'When Atheists attack!'. I'm big on rules. You agree to the rules, you play by them. I agree to them, so do I. If this makes me unpopular w/my fellow atheists, well, I could give a rat's fart in a whirlwind. If no 1 says anything, silence is taken as assent. To paraphrase John Adams, "Facts are those pesky critters that don't go away."

Your “Ahimsa” post blurs some distinctions (well, take into consideration I’m on my first cup of coffee). So maybe you can answer this question so I can better understand where your coming from:
The golden rule is catchy, but, according to your moral system are you saying this is wrong because it IS wrong? Or, Is it wrong because you SAY it’s wrong?Contrary to what you may (or may not) think, the golden one liner doesn’t answer the question (or “Ahimsa”).

Don't harm others: what else is there to say? Fair & equal treatment, what you expect for yourself, you should give to others. It IS that simple. Empathy. The 'golden 1 liner'? Is that...perchance mockery I hear? ;) Go ahead & re-read it (after the 3rd or 4th cup). I'm curious as to how I blurred the distinctions.
11:17 AM, April 06, 2006

“Why is the god of the bible so adamant that none may be worshipped but he?”

“And why does he, by the proxy of his followers, wage war upon those who feel/think/live differenlty?”

BF:I never said that the passages were a license for mockery. I pointed out that in contrast, the Bible says that unbelievers are fools, wicked etc… and if the Bible teaches it, we are justified articulate biblical expressions and teachings insofar as it’s used in context of how it was used in the Bible. I’m a little more gracious theist, but read this article and it will give the root of what I’m talking about.

Thanks for the article. It was most amusing. I consider that complete sophistry, BTW. Cherry-picking. That's EXACTLY what that article claimed: license for mockery.

In regards to Ahimsa, I think you failed to address the following: you did not define evil. Is it your opinion? What is the standard to which you measure it? Where does the standard come from? If it’s your own personal convention why should anyone accept your definition? Does your subjective opinion apply to anyone else? Can you force your morality on anyone? Why? Why not? The golden 1 liner is not mockery, it just doesn’t answer the essential questions, and it’s a cop out.

Evil=harm. In word or deed. No, I didn't fail to address it at all. No, the 'golden 1 liner' does answer the question, stop poisoning the well.

I like how you dodged my question:According to your moral system are you saying this is wrong because it IS wrong? Or, Is it wrong because you SAY it’s wrong?

Oh, this old dodge. I could see this coming a mile away. Standard talking point. If I say it's wrong because it is, then we have the same old discussion about 'objective morality'. If I say it's because I say so, then it's self-worship.It's wrong because it is. Causing pain is wrong.
10:13 PM, April 06, 2006

I suppose if I accused you of “lunacy” I would be charge with the immoral tendencies to “harangue, harass, belittle, and otherwise behave like children who have been poorly toilet trained.” But I guess “Fair & equal treatment, what you expect for yourself, you should give to others” doesn’t apply if it comes from an atheist.

Listen:A. I didn't call them immoral, I called them hypocritical.B. "As you sow, so shall you reap."Oh, wait: I misused that quote (somehow).Never mind.
10:18 PM, April 06, 2006

And so we come back to this,as always:

"Because according to the Bible, he is the only true God and a jealous one at that. "

But since there's no reason to believe (other than -wanting to-)that the bible is the infallible word of said god...well, we just tumble down into the abyss of circular logic.

Bf.All I asked... hell, all I EVER WILL ask, is that you prove the infallibility of the book you get your morals from.Sorry.. I know that's a tall order.But don't give me your bitchy little, "Well, so are you!",- argument.
11:06 AM, April 07, 2006

It really is very easy.It is incumbent upon those who make extraordinary claims to prove such proclamations.In other words,prove not only that god exists,but that he/she/it conforms to your interpretation of the "rules".If you can manage THAT,THEN I might consider your outpourings as more than mouthiness.
11:11 AM, April 07, 2006

“But don't give me your bitchy little, "Well, so are you!",- argument. If you can manage THAT, THEN I might consider your outpourings as more than mouthiness.”This must be the empathy RA was talking about.
11:55 AM, April 07, 2006

bf.Evidence of the bible's veracity for one.And don't dump a few linksfrom Dembski, Tectonics or, worse,Fall-Down-The-Well.We're not children here.We've been through this before.We'll need actual facts...you know, the kind that allowed man to walk on the moon...not the kind that condemned people for saying the earth had a roundish shape.Another thing would be proving the existence of god...pick a god, any god.In essence, my antagonistic toneaside, why believe when there's absolutely nothing to support it?
2:34 PM, April 07, 2006

Plus:"This must be the empathy RA was talking about."Wow. There's that bitchiness again.You want my empathy?Then don't act like a jilted lover,when all I do is ask obviously needed questions, okay?And remove the stick while you're at it, and have a seat.There's a chair here for youand we do value your input.So quit with the petulant facade,sit down and expound.
2:39 PM, April 07, 2006

You do make comedy easy:

"Even if God appeared before you, would you believe he existed or would you consider it a hallucination of some sort or a trick played on you? How would you know? "

Uh... I suppose that ifhe's all-powerful and omnipotentI'd not have a choice.I'd be convinced by the veryfact that I couldn't choose NOT to.

"Thus, I’ll pass on your request, because it would never meet your satisfaction. "

Translated to human-language:"I have no real argument,so I must run".Bye, buddy.Do drop in again.
4:34 PM, April 07, 2006

BF:This must be the empathy RA was talking about.

Well, at the risk of 'siding' w/HMDK, you HAVE been making the effort to turn the tables on the skeptics in that regard. I've been making the effort to remain civil, but I keep hearing, "What about you?" every time a criticism is voiced.Such as:

But I guess “Fair & equal treatment, what you expect for yourself, you should give to others” doesn’t apply if it comes from an atheist.

Or:

You do however make some pretty strong moral claims:

or:

On a side note, I see that you like to take the ‘moral high ground.’

While normally I consider turnabout fair play, I find the 'Jerry Springer' apologist (no, not you, though you're starting to lean towards it) particularly obnoxious.What I see is an effort to make the other side bend to your rules (a bootless effort: each atheist plays by their own rules, there really IS no set standard). I am all for spirited debate. But unless a set of rules is agreed upon in advance, it's pretty much free-style, isn't it?I feel obliged to point these things out. If I saw a Buddhist who claimed to be a pacifist starting fights all the time, well, you get my drift. I do strive for some kind of standard, though I fumble, as any human does. I find this statement telling:

I am just as much as a loser as anyone else (believer or non-believer).

Perhaps I'm taking this out of context, but this says so much to me.I feel:A. Loser isn't a person, it's a mindsetB. This reeks of original sin& there we have another divide. OS (original sin) is perhaps 1 of the more unbelievable doctrines of xtianity. I find that reprehensible. It stunts the mental potential of every human being that believes it. I find it loathsome: that humanity is some thalidomide baby, purposely stunted by its maker upon existed. What kind, loving being would wish that upon its offspring? & for the sin of the father? I call it cruel: I call it inhumane, I call it many things. & washing 1's sins away in the blood of another, no matter the name? I'm sorry, but that smacks of savagery. In this, I DO take the higher ground. Moral, intellectual, whatever you choose to call it.
As to this:

both atheist and theist would do better if they lighten up and develop thicker skin.

Well, there is a way to do this.Turn the other cheek.Live by your own rules, is my advice. Set an example. & I give you this:"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails." (First Epistle to the Corinthians Chapter 13, verses 4-8a)"I do not need to abide by these rules, as I've not agreed to them. It is you & yours that lay claim to the higher ground. Justify & represent: that's all I ask. That, & honesty. Make of that what you will.
5:54 PM, April 07, 2006

BF:If “there really IS no set standard,” then there is no standard to which others must follow their own standard. In other words, there are no rules that one *ought* to follow their own rules.

I did say this (in its entirety):What I see is an effort to make the other side bend to your rules (a bootless effort: each atheist plays by their own rules, there really IS no set standard).Yes, let's do this. The rules are set by 2 items: the individual's upbringing, and the environment set around the individual. I was talking about debate, failed to qualify, & so we'll talk in circles a bit. My standard is...well, I've given it to you. This was formed by a # of negative experiences as a child, which makes 1 either A. Totally numb, orB. Empathic, or C. SociopathicI went w/B.
Now this:

In other words, there are no rules that one *ought* to follow their own rules.

You have consciously chosen to follow a specific set of parameters, in accordance w/the agreement of your specific clique/herd/choose noun of your choice.In order for any individual in a pack environment to exist w/said pack, there is obviously select patterns to maintain. This is observable in humanity, in nature, w/any living organism (sans the loner animal).There are indeed set social mores, that we're obliged to follow. Set at the core of these, is empathy. If an animal sets itself against the pack, more often than not, that animal is outcast, or destroyed. In your pack, the parameters were set 2000 years ago, by an alpha wolf. Apparently, said parameters were almost impossible to follow. Whereas, in my pack, we have set ourselves outside the majority, ergo, in a manner of speaking, there's a certain amount of isolation. Hence the anger, the frustration. So if you're trying to set up some strawman attack (& if I'm off on this, apologies), that's not going to fly. I still have YET to hear about my misuse of scripture quotation. Oh, & this:

Even if God appeared before you, would you believe he existed or would you consider it a hallucination of some sort or a trick played on you? How would you know?

Perhaps the better question, would be: how would you know yourself? What is your criterion? I'm genuinely curious. Have you had such a thing occur?
11:36 PM, April 07, 2006

You have consciously chosen to follow a specific set of parameters, in accordance w/the agreement of your specific clique/herd/choose noun of your choice.

In order for any individual in a pack environment to exist w/said pack, there is obviously select patterns to maintain. This is observable in humanity, in nature, w/any living organism (sans the loner animal).

There are indeed set social mores, that we're obliged to follow.

Set at the core of these, is empathy.

an animal sets itself against the pack, more often than not, that animal is outcast, or destroyed.

In your pack, the parameters were set 2000 years ago, by an alpha wolf. Apparently, said parameters were almost impossible to follow. Whereas, in my pack, we have set ourselves outside the majority, ergo, in a manner of speaking, there's a certain amount of isolation. Hence the anger, the frustration. So if you're trying to set up some strawman attack (& if I'm off on this, apologies), that's not going to fly.

Perhaps the better question, would be: how would you know yourself? What is your criterion? I'm genuinely curious. Have you had such a thing occur?

BF:

Agreed, but my specific set of parameters qualifies me to its adherence. Someone without any specific set of parameters (Read: rules) has no specific set of parameters (rules) to require those who have chosen to adhere to a certain specific set of parameters to actually adhere to them.

So this is your roundabout way of saying, "You can't criticize me?" Nu-UH. Obviously, I have a set of parameters to follow: otherwise, you'd be reading about me in the newspapers, or seeing me on an episode of 'Cops'.

Hence, if you deny objective standards, you disqualify your own standard of requiring others to hold to their own standard. It’s self refuting.

No way, no dice. Nice try. No such thing as 'objective standards'.

It’s not as if just because one has consciously chosen to follow a specific set of parameters, one *ought* to follow those parameters. What if there was a group who’s specific set of parameters was to murder atheists? Would you require them to follow those parameters? I think not (neither would I, but actually oppose it). It’s not just about having parameters (or rules), we must be able to appeal to a standard to judge whether or not those rules *ought* to be followed.

'Do unto others...', see, it still applies. I'm really making an effort here not to resort to 'appeal to ridicule', or the ad hominem: your 'murdering atheist' analogy almost opens up a whole can of worms.

According to this, only that “pack” that holds to these values can enforce them. If you have two different “packs,” with two different sets of “pack” values, one “pack” cannot force it’s own values on another “pack.” If it can, then were talking about might makes right and whomsoever can overpower, will be in the right.

Which is historically verifiable.

And if the standard of society is racism are we obligated to follow? Was Martin Luther King going against his obligation to follow the ‘social mores’? According to this standard, there can never be moral reform in a society, and people in social mores like Nazi Germany were “obligated to follow.”

Again, sadly, historically verifiable. File under 'moral relativism'. However, social mores change, and they DO evolve. There will always be problems, ironed out in time, but evolution gives us the ability to move forward. It takes one mutation, whether that's in the social meme, or in the act of speciation, to change the flow of life.

Yes, but if your not in the pack, you don’t get to kick out pack members.

I'm not in a position to kick anyone out. Honesty impels me to point it out.

I have no problems when people challenging certain claims—they ought to, but skeptics can always be successful at being a skeptic no matter what is presented before them.

Not a cheap shot, but the same claim can be made for religious folk.

Thus far, your successful adoption of my simile sways me not in the slightest. It's simplistic reductionism. As a pack animal, we as a species have evolved a far more intricate, complex set of interactions that (dare I say it? YES!) transcend the simpler format that you've presented. If we were talking about dogs, all of your examples would be correct. But we are talking about a creature w/approx. a billion (guesstimate) separate mechanisms used to interact w/other creatures of the same species. To pare those down to just 1 core ingredient? I'm going to have to go w/empathy. There may be a couple of more.Ingersoll moment - "'Thou shalt not kill' is as old as time itself, as most men object to being killed."& so, regardless of whatever Gordian knots of logic you use, I will, to borrow a metaphor, cut them w/my blade. I haven't named the bloody thing yet. How goes fatherhood, BTW?
2:41 PM, April 08, 2006

Labels: Apologetics, Atheism, Atheology, Christianity, Epistemology, Knowledge, Morality, Skepticism

1. Do objective moral laws point to a Law Giver?
2. Or can the basis for morality be sufficiently plausible for the secular?

[O]n the cut-flowers thesis, those who believe morality is a valuable human institution, and those who wish to avoid moral disaster, will make every effort to preserve its connection with religion and the religious belief which forms its roots. The apologetic force of the cut-flowers thesis becomes even stronger if the religionist makes the additional claim that morality is presently in a withering stage. This claim takes on a sense of urgency when the decline in morality is identified with the muddle in which civilization now finds itself.

The Liberal views that took root in the 60’s have begun coming to full fruition. The Sexual Revolution as the Women’s Movement called it took hold. How they ever figured it would benefit women is beyond me, but they pushed it. Then the Gay movements arrived, and took hold in a militant form that has an agenda to have our children taught that their lifestyle is just fine, and should be explored. Reading some of those ads, it also became evident that roots had strongly taken in our society. It is quite evident that having “fun” is more important than traditional; values such as hard work and fidelity.Then the massive thrust of television and theaters that taught these same people that sex, and alternative lifestyles, marital infidelity, and divorce are all to be accepted as normal.

The violence from Hollywood has also inundated the minds of our society, and has taken root as well. And even further, is the Liberal PC movement that takes into regard many of these lifestyles and embraces them as acceptable, all the while bashing Christianity and its value system. We have allowed in this nation to have the Bible, and mention of Christian values taken from society and have allowed all these other immoral and destructive behaviors and lifestyles to become seen as normal.

Every advancement we have made, and every accouterment we now enjoy has come about through the use of our reason. Faith has never moved a mountain, but human brain power and technology can. We advance through a process of intellectual accretion. Reason is, in fact, the faculty that defines us as being human. To insist that reason is 'limited' and that there are other methods (meaning faith) of acquiring knowledge is to reject the efficacy of reason simply because it does not allow us to treat flights of the imagination as tangible realities. The person advancing such a notion is not a person comfortable with reality and seeks an escape from it. In order to escape the sometimes discomforting facts of reality and contemporary living, such people must circumvent reason and introduce a non-life value in its place

For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;

Labels: Apologetics, Knowledge, Morality