There were two things Christopher Hitchens said in the debate Saturday night at Biola.
First, he admitted at one point that he'd be very disappointed if God does exist because he feels his freedom would be impinged upon. Hitchens stated quite clearly that freedom is his major concern about religion - the behavioral restrictions it would impose if God exists and also the earthly power religions have exercised in various forms, some leading to tyranny. Hitchens has a true dedication to freedom in all its forms and has engaged in efforts extend freedom in the world, and he should be given credit for that. And he has a true hatred, I think comes across, for religious tyranny. But he also believes religion in any form exercises a personal tyranny, at least as he sees it. His personal sovereignty, I believe, is what he would be most disappointed about giving up if God exists.
The second major admission is that he doesn't have an explanation for the real moral values he believes exist. One of the major problems of his book is that he continually calls religion evil and believes that that is a real, non-material value that he can judge others by. He's not a moral relativist. He believes things are truly good and evil. But in a materialist explanation of the world, which he believes, these kinds of non-physical values are aliens. Hitchens has never offered an explanation. Dr. Craig questioned him on this point during the cross-examination and Hitchens said that, if pressed, he'd offer an evolutionary explanation for morality but that he didn't want to be reductionistic. He will employ an evolutionary story if necessary, but he realizes that that makes moral values unreal, non-objective, useful fictions really, and that is not the kind of moral value he believes in. He's got something in his worldview that doesn't fit and he admitted he doesn't know how it got there.
I just thought of a third major admission Hitchens made by omission. He never addressed the cosmological argument Craig offered. He took some jabs at the other arguments Craig gave and he tried to make hay of the false cosmology religion has held in the past, but he ignored the cosmological argument altogether, didn't show how any of the premises were wrong, or offer an alternate explanation, which I take to mean he doesn't have a response. It's one of the strongest objections to a materialist worldview.
So from his point of view, who gets to decide what things are truly evil and truly good?
Posted by: Jeremy Melberg | April 06, 2009 at 08:42 AM
does anyone have a link to the debate? I can't find it anywhere.
Posted by: Chris Scott | April 06, 2009 at 09:00 AM
I don't think you really have to be able to explain a thing exhaustively to believe it. Before Newton people knew that if you jumped off a cliff you'd fall, and you might die. They didn't understand gravitation, but that's OK. It's still a fact.
That's kind of how I view morality. It's a complex topic. It's like numbers and logic in some ways. It seems to simply be in the nature of things. People write whole books on the topic and it's hard to figure out who's right. For example there's a book with Jean Pierre-Changeux and Alain Connes on the nature of mind, matter, and mathematics. Changeux, the neurobiologist, believes numbers are nothing but projections of the human mind, whereas Connes, the mathematician, sees them as existing independently of minds. It's a difficult question, but regardless I'm still going to use math to balance my checkbook.
The Christian sees that this is a difficult problem to resolve, so he sees an opportunity. Since we don't have answers (right now) this is a perfect place to rush in and insert God as the explanation, since God explains everything. Well, yeah, he does. Is that really helpful?
I like to call radio shows sometimes. I've spoken with Greg a couple of times. I speak with a guy named Bob Dutko in Detroit. He claims that Christianity is backed up by "science, logic, and intellectual reasoning." He's a young earth creationist. One time I spoke with him about how certain virus sequences common to humans and chimpanzees show that we share a common ancestor. He replies "I have no problem with God inserting certain genetic sequences between humans and animals. Similar design, similar designer."
I wanted to say (but didn't get a chance) that of course you have no problem. You have no problem if the sequences are similar. God did it. You have no problem if the sequences are different. God did it that way. You have no problem with fossil evidence indicating intermediarries. God made a unique creature that way. You have no problem if there are no intermediarries. God didn't make them. It doesn't matter what is observed. God is consistent with all of it. He explains everything. He can explain lightning, meteorites, genetic similarities with humans and chimps. God explains morality, numbers, logic. He's the universal all explaining entity. But with a track record so poor (what was long thought to only be explainable with God no longer is) I'm not just going to accept God as an explanation for morals. I'll say for now I don't know, and that's OK.
Posted by: Jon | April 06, 2009 at 09:28 AM
Like all atheists who are smart enough to see the uselessness of moral relativism, Hitchens still must assume contradictions are reasonable to live with. How that is more noble than true relativism, i'm not sure. I guess my question to him would be..."why should I listen to anything you have to say?" I have an explanation for morality and it is backed up by what is observable. You sir...have have nothing more than your preference that you not be ultimately accountable. Any thinking person needs more than that, sorry.
Posted by: Frank Cory | April 06, 2009 at 09:45 AM
Why is it that many atheists and agnostics think Christians are arguing that if one cannot explain morality, then they cannot believe in a set of morals and live by them?
Posted by: Jesse | April 06, 2009 at 09:54 AM
If I was Craig, I might've asked Hitchens what it is he feels he has the freedom to do now that he would not be able to do if God exists. After all, Hitchens frequently makes the challenge that there is no moral a Christian can hold that an atheist couldn't also hold.
Jon, you make "God" seems like an arbitrary explanation for anything we don't understand, but I don't think "God" is an arbitrary explanation for morals. It seems to me that morals MUST have their origin in a transcendent personal being who has authority over us.
Jesse, I've decided that in any debate where the moral argument for God comes up, it's almost guaranteed that the atheist will not understand the argument or will misconstrue it somehow. And it doesn't matter how many times they are corrected.
Posted by: Sam | April 06, 2009 at 10:31 AM
"Why is it that many atheists and agnostics think Christians are arguing that if one cannot explain morality, then they cannot believe in a set of morals and live by them?"
Jesse: Well put. I might take it a step further. As a Christian, I am inclined to believe that sane atheists must believe in a set of morals and (try to) live by them, even though they cannot explain their existence. The problem for them is in explaining it. And even atheists should admit that an objective universal morality, to the extent that it exists, is immaterial.
Posted by: Naturallawyer | April 06, 2009 at 10:33 AM
"It seems to me that morals MUST have their origin in a transcendent personal being who has authority over us."
Exactly. A personal thing that is must be the source of these things we hold as Good. Abstract things do not exist of themselves. A number 12 doesnt actually exist even if there are 12 actual objects. Likewise, "good", of itself, does not exist outside of a personal thing.
Posted by: Drew Carey Von Price Is | April 06, 2009 at 10:38 AM
Yeah, Sam, that's pretty much how I see God. You say that it "seems" that morality must have an origin in a transcendent personal being. I certainly understand the appeal. It's a simple explanation.
But let me tell you a couple of other things that seem to be the case, but aren't. It really seems like the sun goes around the earth, and the stars move about us. It seems that the earth is flat. It seems that two parallel lines would never intersect. But space-time is curved. It's a mind bender for all of us. But it's true. Evolution shows us that the traits that emerge amongst living organisms can become very complex even by natural means. Inserting God in that gap in our knowledge is just not useful
Posted by: Jon | April 06, 2009 at 10:54 AM
It seems to me that believing in morality without grounding, and believing that eventually we'll find a naturalistic explanation, is a leap of faith. It's the same with numbers: we can't fully explain what numbers are, but we have faith that math always works out correctly when correctly done.
So an atheist does indeed rely on things he cannot fully understand. But when he presses the Christian, and finds the Christian cannot fully explain something about God, he finds grounds for ridiculing such an irrational faith.
By the way, it's obvious that things aren't always as they seem to be. But it does not follow from this fact that God is not the originator of the moral law written on our hearts. Some things are as they seem. It seems wrong to murder your neighbor: it is. It seems that adding 2+2 yields 4: it does. It seems that the sun is the source of daytime light on earth: it is.
Posted by: Jesse | April 06, 2009 at 11:27 AM
Jon, don't you think it's reasonable to affirm what seems to be the case UNLESS we have good reason to think otherwise?
Posted by: Sam | April 06, 2009 at 11:33 AM
Jon, may I ask: do you get the impression that Christians are just scraping the bottom of the barrel, looking for those last few gaps in our understanding in which to insert God?
Posted by: Jesse | April 06, 2009 at 11:44 AM
How, exactly, is "objective universal morality" communicated to humans? How, exactly, is this or was this observable? When did this first occur? Did occur in all human populations at once? Why didn't occur at an earlier time? Does "objective universal morality" change over time?
Posted by: Joe | April 06, 2009 at 11:50 AM
Joe, all morality stems from the concept of "justification." That is, we all give reasons to justify our behavior, and we expect as much from others. Since this propensity is universal, I would say that morality is innate. We're just made that way. As the Bible puts it, God's law is written on our hearts.
Posted by: Sam | April 06, 2009 at 12:31 PM
"God's law is written on our hearts"? Well, that's vague enough.
How did God write these laws "on our hearts"? What's the mechanism? Why does my heart give a different answer from your heart on specific questions of morality? Who's heart is the right heart?
Morality is innate? Ok, at what point in time was this innate property given to humans? How do we get this property delivered to all of the human populations? And if it's universal, why do morals vary so much with time and place and culture?
Posted by: Joe | April 06, 2009 at 01:10 PM
RE: Personal "freedom"
"In the long run we are all dead."
John Maynard Keynes (1883–1946)
Posted by: Justsayin | April 06, 2009 at 01:18 PM
>>How, exactly, is "objective universal morality" communicated to humans?
God's Word (The Bible)
>>How, exactly, is this or was this observable?
Reading.
>>When did this first occur?
Debatable, but many suspect about 5,000 BC.
>>Did occur in all human populations at once?
No.
>> Why didn't occur at an earlier time?
Why did we deserve that?
>> Does "objective universal morality" change over time?
No.
Posted by: Justsayin | April 06, 2009 at 01:21 PM
>>How did God write these laws "on our hearts"? What's the mechanism?
Probably a combination of nature, nurture and choice, as with any property of the soul and mind (i.e. the heart).
>>Why does my heart give a different answer from your heart on specific questions of morality?
Sin corrupts.
>>Who's heart is the right heart?
God's Heart.
>>Morality is innate? Ok, at what point in time was this innate property given to humans?
At what point did "breathing" become an innate property given to humans?
>>How do we get this property delivered to all of the human populations?
See above.
>>And if it's universal, why do morals vary so much with time and place and culture?
Sin's corruption.
Posted by: Justsayin | April 06, 2009 at 01:26 PM
Ironically by and large the most freedom has been denied those under regimes of athiesim. But that is the problem with the human mind. The human being could be shackled hand and foot and at the same time be declaring his "liberation" from God. Fascinating.
Posted by: Damian | April 06, 2009 at 01:29 PM
But the Bible is the product of human hands, not God's hands.
How did those writing the Bible divine the non-material will of the creator of the entire universe? To steal Darwin's phrase, a dog might as well speculate the mind of Newton. Why didn't God come to Earth in human form in 5000 BC and write the book Himself, thus eliminated the possibility of error?
Yes, people can read, but can you trust what you are reading?
Why isn't OUM given to all human populations at once? I assume that OUM is a good thing, yes? Doesn't this contradict the position of a previous poster who described morality as "innate"?
What do you mean by "why did we deserve that" with respect to being given OUM at an earlier time? What changed in 5000 BC? Where we suddenly deserving? How long had the species existed without OUM?
If OUM doesn't change over time, then genocide is moral.
Posted by: Joe | April 06, 2009 at 01:34 PM
Morality is innate? Ok, at what point in time was this innate property given to humans? How do we get this property delivered to all of the human populations? And if it's universal, why do morals vary so much with time and place and culture?Joe, the argument Dr. Craig made wasn't about specific moral beliefs but rather the existance of a universal understanding that there is a right and a wrong.
We might disagree as to what those are, but we all have a sense that some actions, thoughts, words are virtuous and others are heinous. And, truthfully? We agree on quite a lot, but perhaps not in the working out of the particulars.
Posted by: Rebecca LuElla Miller | April 06, 2009 at 01:38 PM
"...a combination of nature, nurture and choice, as with any property of the soul and mind (i.e. the heart)."
What does that mean? How does this work? Could you be any vaguer?
"God's heart", "sin corrupts", what's that supposed to mean?
These are nice abstractions, but the hardly solve the problem. If all hearts are sinful, then no one's heart is right. So how do you determine OUM?
When did breathing become innate? What does that mean? How long have humans walked the Earth and when, in that time span, did morality become innate?
Posted by: Joe | April 06, 2009 at 01:42 PM
"Dr. Craig made wasn't about specific moral beliefs but rather the existance of a universal understanding that there is a right and a wrong."
Well, that's nice and squishy, given that we disagree on the details and particulars. Not much point of having a universal understanding of right and wrong if we're going to vary so much on the particulars.
Posted by: Joe | April 06, 2009 at 01:45 PM
>>But the Bible is the product of human hands, not God's hands.
Not according to God.
>>How did those writing the Bible divine the non-material will of the creator of the entire universe?
The Creator told them what to write.
>>Yes, people can read, but can you trust what you are reading?
The same as you trust any other source. Perhaps are you asking why the Bible is trustworthy?
>>Why isn't OUM given to all human populations at once?
Well, it was given at Creation. Since then, it became corrupted by our sin (including by you and me). But God loved us to give us his Word, giving us access to his universal standard.
>>What do you mean by "why did we deserve that" with respect to being given OUM at an earlier time?
We had it. We blew it. God loved us and gave us a second chance, which is more than we deserve given our constant sin.
>>If OUM doesn't change over time, then genocide is moral.
Murder is always wrong.
Posted by: Justsayin | April 06, 2009 at 01:53 PM
Hmm, lots of untestable claims here. And the creation was when?
Murder is always wrong? Read the Book of Joshua.
Posted by: Joe | April 06, 2009 at 01:55 PM
>>What does that mean? How does this work? Could you be any vaguer?
Sorry. Until science can completely explain the motivations of mind and soul (instead of explaining both as non-existent), that is the best I can do today.
>>"God's heart", "sin corrupts", what's that supposed to mean?
I'm not sure how I can make it any more elementary.
>>If all hearts are sinful, then no one's heart is right.
Correct in that no human's heart is perfect.
>>So how do you determine OUM?
You read and understand God's Word.
>>When did breathing become innate? What does that mean?
When humans became human (i.e. when we were created). Sorry, I don't own a time-machine to give you a specific date for this. But since it happened, be sure it happened.
Posted by: Justsayin | April 06, 2009 at 02:01 PM
>>Hmm, lots of untestable claims here.
Such as?
>>And the creation was when?
I don't know the exact date. I know it happened, since we are here.
>>Murder is always wrong? Read the Book of Joshua.
Where does God say murder isn't always wrong in the Book of Joshua?
Posted by: Justsayin | April 06, 2009 at 02:10 PM
Test my claims:
Open Bible.
Read.
Posted by: Justsayin | April 06, 2009 at 02:13 PM
RE: Book of Joshua
The commandment against murder applies to me and you and other human beings, not to God. The commandment is YOU shall not murder...He says nothing about Himself (God gives and takes life all the time. Do you consider God a "murderer" when someone dies of old age?)
Posted by: Justsayin | April 06, 2009 at 02:15 PM
Did a human hand kill the babies in Canaan? Yes or no?
I opened, I read, it doesn't add up. God's word has been used to support genocide, torture, slavery, capital punishment, discrimination against women, the burning of heretics, crusades and on and on. It's also been used to support the diametrically opposing position on all of the above. It seems that God's word isn't very clear.
I know that you don't have a time machine, but how about taking a shot at it anyway. Within 5000 years, when were humans created? And here's an easier one...where humans created at the same time as all other life, give or take a day or two?
Posted by: Joe | April 06, 2009 at 02:21 PM
>>Did a human hand kill the babies in Canaan? Yes or no?
Was it a human's will to kill them? The answer is no. It was God's Will to be done. Like any other commanding officer, God can override a standing order at His wish, without violating the standing order. It is His rules. The rule against murder still stands.
>> It seems that God's word isn't very clear.
Clear compared to what standard? How are you defining "clearness"?
>>I know that you don't have a time machine, but how about taking a shot at it anyway.
Why? The particular date isn't a concern of mine. And it depends on what you mean as "human" -- physical form or actual people, human beings (souls, minds, etc.)?
>>(were) humans created at the same time as all other life, give or take a day or two?
Human beings were created after the first lifeforms (Gen. 1:26).
Posted by: Justsayin | April 06, 2009 at 02:34 PM
Don't want to give me answers about creation, do you? I'm supposed to trust the Bible, but you don't really want to put the Bible to the test, right? I think I know why.
"It was God's Will to be done."
Great answer! Thou shalt not kill only stands until the voices in your head say it doesn't stand. How many times has that rationale been used to torture, enslave and/or kill? I'm sorry, but this makes a total mockery of the concept of objective universal morality.
Posted by: Joe | April 06, 2009 at 03:28 PM
Hey, you know what? I hear God telling me that the local mall is filled with greedy sinners. He's telling me that it's His Will that I mow them down with an automatic weapon. I'm on my way; I'll get back to you later.
Posted by: Joe | April 06, 2009 at 03:31 PM
Joe, unless you're prepared to say that the fact that our government puts people in jail while at the same time telling us that we're not allowed to imprison people in our basement is total contradictory nonsense, then the difference between authorized judgment and murder--authority and no authority--stands. You know it's not nonsense, and that the situation in our own government says nothing about the objective nature of morality. You may disagree with the punishment given by God, but it's not contradictory.
I think you're misunderstanding what happened in the Old Testament and why. We talked about it a little earlier. It's not anything like what you just said about the mall. There's a context in the Bible--the nation of Israel, the nature of the old covenant, the ancient world, the need to separate the Jews from cultural influences like child sacrifice and other destructive pagan influences, the new covenant, the nature of the current people of God and how the people of this covenant are brought together, the fact that God has placed the government in charge in His place to punish those who do wrong, etc., etc. All these things in the Bible mean that the scenario you just described is not remotely similar to what happened in the Old Testament...if God exists, of course.
In order for you to be right about the OT and genocide, God has to not exist (and in fact, I believe Hitchens conceded this on Saturday). If God does exist, there's nothing contradictory about it, and there's nothing there to suggest you should go kill people at the mall. So you can't assume He doesn't exist (i.e., to make your mall argument that crazy people hear voices that aren't really God and kill people like the Israelites did) in order to prove He doesn't exist (i.e., God doesn't exist, therefore the Israelites were crazy people and did evil, therefore the Bible is evil and God doesn't exist). That's circular. If He exists, then this isn't nonsense or evil. So it seems that's the first thing you have to determine.
Posted by: Amy | April 06, 2009 at 05:34 PM
It is completely illogical to conclude that if I concluded that the Israelites were only killing for their own personal gain, then this means that God doesn't exist. That doesn't make sense.
This has nothing to do with Hitchens. God can exist. He could be completely different from your conception of Him. He doesn't have to tell people to kill every man, woman and child of a given ethnic group, no matter what the situation. God can't do the killing Himself? Do you doubt the power of God?
And if God could tell the Israelites to kill the sinful Canaanites, He can tell me to kill the sinful shoppers. In God's eyes, we are all equally guilty, right? God can kill anyone at any time, right? And he can act as the killing authority at any time, right? Ok, then he can tell me to kill the mall shoppers. Prove that he didn't.
There is absolutely no earthly way to determine if God told the Israelites to commit genocide, but I think that it's extremely unlikely. The Israeliates behaved exactly like any other victorioius late Bronze Age tribe. Exactly. Your argument is pure post hoc rationalization. You know the Israelites committed genocide, and now you excuse it with some appeal to an invisible, undetectable "authority".
You think that the Canaanite culture was the worst culture of all time? Had the Canaanite babies survived, would they have told the Israelites to continue the pagan practices? How would they have done this? All the babies had to die to prevent the Canaanites from sacrificing some of the babies? In what world does this make sense?
For the last time, PEOPLE created human governments, human government are of the PHYSICAL world, PEOPLE chose to give human governments the power that they have. Your human government argument is irrelevant.
It's the same old story again and again and again. People claim "divine authority" to justify horrendous actions. And you've bought it hook, line and sinker.
Posted by: Joe | April 06, 2009 at 06:04 PM
Wow, I'm bummed that I missed most of this debate. It departed from physics and went to inherent morality (aka "the natural law", which you can probably tell I'm a fan of, given my handle).
I would actually part ways with Justsayin on several of his answers to Joe's questions.
"How, exactly, is 'objective universal morality' communicated to humans?"
One answer might be through conscience or rationality. I suppose I could ask how exactly 2+2=4 is "communicated to humans", but I need not because it's just obvious. As soon as you understand what that equation means, you know that it's right. "Do good and avoid evil" is sort of like that; it need not be taught or communicated because it forms the apparatus by which we communicate moral truths to beginwith.
"How, exactly, is this or was this observable? When did this first occur?"
How was the first communication of 2+2=4 "observable"? Most likely, under the theist view, the first human mind observed it because it's obvious, i.e. "self-evident".
"Did occur in all human populations at once? Why didn't occur at an earlier time?"
You are assuming that human populations existed before it was obvious that we should avoid evil and do good. That assumption cannot be verified (and I'm rather confident that it's false), though you are free to believe it if you like.
"Does 'objective universal morality' change over time?"
No. By universal morality, I would mean moral truths that apply to all people regardless of their location or time. Some moral truths are local applications of universal moral truths, so not all moral truths as we understand them will apply to everyone.
"How did God write these laws 'on our hearts'? What's the mechanism?"
The mechanism is your mind, as in your conscience. You were created with one.
"Why does my heart give a different answer from your heart on specific questions of morality? Who's heart is the right heart?"
I LOVE these questions. Picture moral truth like a bulls-eye target. In the center is "do good and avoid evil." To focus on the negative injunction--right around the center is something like "don't harm people (that's evil)". Everybody with a normal functioning mind knows these. Right around that is "don't murder people", "don't assault people", "don't torture children", etc. These are truths that everyone who can do one step of reason knows.
Outside that ring is a series of less-obvious moral truths, and applications of moral truths. Outside that ring is another series of yet further less obvious truths and applications of more basic moral truths in more complicated situations. That's where the action is when looking at moral disagreements between cultures and individual members of society.
Each of us will have selfish motives for skewing the truths, and we are more likely to get away with intentionally skewing the moral truth by pushing debates away from the central truths. Thus, we get from "don't murder" to "well in my situation someone slept with my wife and he really looked angry and I had been drinking and he seemed so flippant and I just couldn't help myself and so I just 'snapped' and besides I was beaten as a child so that's why I'm not responsible for my actions and it wasn't murder." Who's heart is right? Well, you can't really ask "which person has the true math?" The real questions are in individual situations, and whoever gets it right according to the real morality (rather than the skewed one) is the right one in that instance. But the further away from the central truths you get, the harder it becomes (the story I told above is silly, but there are definitely some really complicated difficult scenarios where we can debate all night what the right thing to do is; the reason it's difficult is because you are many logic-steps away from the center truth, and/or there are several moral truths at play which must be harmonized). In those situations, you have to do the best you can (but that does not make morality itself non-existent).
Posted by: Naturallawyer | April 06, 2009 at 07:33 PM
"Morality is innate? Ok, at what point in time was this innate property given to humans?"
When a human is created, the property is conferred with everything else that comes with a mind.
"How do we get this property delivered to all of the human populations?"
That's like asking how do we get brains delivered to all human populations. It's inherent in what a human is.
"And if it's universal, why do morals vary so much with time and place and culture?"
Another of my favorite questions. Some people intentionally skew their conscience and lead others to do so. For instance, perhaps one southern white farmer decides to purchase a slave by ordering one from another place (and lets say no other farmers have slaves yet). Said farmer tells himself, "I know it's wrong to treat humans like property. Of course, I would never do that. Black people are sub-human, and I am justified in treating them like property, even though I affirm the moral truth that one should not treat humans like property." Farmer B, who would not have ordered a slave on his own, sees the first farmer out-performing him and out-selling him. He is *ready* to do what it takes to "keep up with the Joneses." When he finds out the first farmer's secret, he asks him, "how can you do that?" The first farmer responds, "well, you see, I know that it's wrong to treat people like property, but black people are sub-human, so it's really ok." Farmer B says, "oh, I never realized...sounds good to me." Thus, the central universal moral truth is affirmed, and yet these guys have embarked on a sick journey that will grow to their neighbors, and it will grow easily due to self-interest.
Then you have people in other places with little or no self-interest involved, viewing the situation from the sidelines (say, where it's too cold to farm quite as much), saying, "that is absolutely inexcuseable." The cultures differ, and differ sharply. They even go to war. But all the while they hold to the same central moral truths.
It doesn't take much to get a person to buy into a lie when it benefits him and it's close enough to moral reality that he can accept it without hating himself. Even with cannibals: "don't you guys know that eating people is wrong?" "Of course we do. But see that tribe over there? Those aren't people." Eventually, a person may get to the point where he has a "callous conscience", and he just doesn't see the moral violation as a big deal anymore anyway. A whole culture can buy into a lie, leading the children to be raised in the lie, which will make them believe the lie easier. But the truth is still in them, waiting to be drawn out, and the violations of their consciences will cause other problems in their lives.
But the real question here isn't "why do morals vary so much with time and place and culture?"; rather, it's "why are morals so consistent over time and place and culture?"
Posted by: Naturallawyer | April 06, 2009 at 07:33 PM
Joe, if you are following the Biblical narrative of the Cannanite conquest, by what measure can you say that they were just using God to justify their genocide? Given there is so much distance between us and them, and given the fact that ouside of the bible we really have no clue as to what happened, if we are sticking to the narrative how can we then infuse our own 21st century opinion?
Why would God ask you to kill a few sinful grocery shoppers? What divine purpose would that serve? Simple judgement? Unless you believe God is some galactic exterminator, I dont think its possible to justify such an act, atleast not without genuine malice.
When it comes to this you really only have two options, that being what the Bible affirms in this scenario; or God indeed, doesnt exist, and thousands of israelites were honestly mistaken. But to somehow suggest they were using a non-existant God to justify their evil desires -- with no evidence to support that accuzation (because really, our only evidence is the Biblical narrative), just dismisses the narrative in favor of a personal explanation that takes none of the Bible into consideration, and instead draws from present day mistrust of religion and cases where people indeed did sinister things because "god told them to".
Yes, people do do what you say, and its terrible. That doesnt mean they (israelites) did it. Either the narrative is true as it stands, or it is not, and we have nothing left but speculation.
Posted by: Phantasy Star Universe | April 06, 2009 at 08:02 PM
I love religion. It's all about absolute morals and reason and logic and evidence...right up to the point where it's bloody obvious that there is a massive internal contradiction that forces the mother of all rationalizations and that turns the notion of objective universal morality into a obscene joke. Then it's nothing but **, **, **.
Just go ahead and ban me, Amy, I've had my full of **.
Posted by: Joe | April 06, 2009 at 08:27 PM
>>Don't want to give me answers about creation, do you?
What answers do you seek?
>>Thou shalt not kill only stands until the voices in your head say it doesn't stand.
Not "voices." Only when God commands.
>>How many times has that rationale been used to torture, enslave and/or kill?
Logical fallacy.
>>I'm sorry, but this makes a total mockery of the concept of objective universal morality.
It's still objective, and universal, and you have yet to present an logical argument to prove otherwise.
Posted by: Justsayin | April 07, 2009 at 05:48 AM
>>He's telling me that it's His Will that I mow them down with an automatic weapon.
How do you know the instruction is from God? What evidence do you have?
Also: The order to slay the Canaanites only applied to Canaanites, and there are none of them left.
In addition: You clearly have murder in your heart, which makes your actions sinful.
Posted by: Justsayin | April 07, 2009 at 05:53 AM
>>He could be completely different from your conception of Him.
It's up to you present evidence of your claim.
>>He doesn't have to tell people to kill every man, woman and child of a given ethnic group, no matter what the situation.
Why can't He? Are you in the position to judge God?
>>God can't do the killing Himself? Do you doubt the power of God?
But He did do the killing. He used his people as instruments. If you are defining "power" as "effective" -- it was powerful enough.
>>And if God could tell the Israelites to kill the sinful Canaanites, He can tell me to kill the sinful shoppers.
Logical fallacy.
>>In God's eyes, we are all equally guilty, right? God can kill anyone at any time, right?
All of us do die, it's a scientific fact. But the manner of our demise is supposed to be His decision, not ours.
>>And he can act as the killing authority at any time, right? Ok, then he can tell me to kill the mall shoppers. Prove that he didn't.
Actually, YOU need to prove that He did. Present your evidence.
Posted by: Justsayin | April 07, 2009 at 06:00 AM
>>There is absolutely no earthly way to determine if God told the Israelites to commit genocide, but I think that it's extremely unlikely.
Yes, there is.
We have evidence.
You don't.
Posted by: Justsayin | April 07, 2009 at 06:01 AM
>>You know the Israelites committed genocide, and now you excuse it with some appeal to an invisible, undetectable "authority".
Logical fallacy.
>>All the babies had to die to prevent the Canaanites from sacrificing some of the babies?
You must be pro-life, given your concern for killing of babies and all.
But babies die all the time, even right this minute. And God takes babies and children who pass away directly into His arms. Babies go to heaven. The babies were just fine, it's the adult Canaanites you need to worry about.
You still haven't proved how God "murdered" anyone.
>>And you've bought it hook, line and sinker.
Another logical fallacy. I'm detecting a trend here. Lots of untestable assertions.
Posted by: Justsayin | April 07, 2009 at 06:06 AM
Dr. William Lane Craig has a good article on the Canaanites here:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5767
Posted by: Justsayin | April 07, 2009 at 06:09 AM
Joe's done. Read this nonsense threatens Joe's sanity.
Posted by: Joe | April 07, 2009 at 06:15 AM
>>Joe's done.
Yes.
Posted by: Justsayin | April 07, 2009 at 06:21 AM
And so Joe concludes his time here with another logical fallacy, specifically ad hominem ("this nonsense...")
You know the Bible makes more sense when your realize it's about HIM...not you, Joe.
My suggestion is you read it from that perspective, then look at your own life and sin before you cast stones at God.
Posted by: Justsayin | April 07, 2009 at 07:36 AM
Joe, I'm jumping in to this conversation rather late, but I'd just like to say the questions you asked on 4/6 at 11:50AM and 1:10 PM were very good questions and fine examples of why positing God as the cause of something (i.e. morality) does not close off inquisition and investigation.
Posted by: Jesse | April 07, 2009 at 09:01 AM
J-boy,
Just to clarify, did I say that YOU were nonsense or did I say that your ARGUMENT was nonsense?
Posted by: Joe | April 07, 2009 at 09:16 AM