tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post116753419361268532..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Christians Do Not Have a Superior Foundation for Morality!Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-30452156940853899552010-09-05T05:43:41.387-04:002010-09-05T05:43:41.387-04:00I didn't know we went back this far BDK, thank...I didn't know we went back this far BDK, thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-43614486889609713152010-09-05T01:57:48.380-04:002010-09-05T01:57:48.380-04:00I polished and presented my above argument about E...I polished and presented my above argument about Euthyphro at Reppert's blog <a href="http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2008/02/what-are-bad-arguments-for-your.html#c491856057460147221" rel="nofollow">here</a>.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-81065874565170592092008-06-19T10:02:00.000-04:002008-06-19T10:02:00.000-04:00Look ....I dont claim to be moraly superior to any...Look ....I dont claim to be moraly superior to anyone.<BR/>Nor do I claim to be a model christian either.<BR/>What I do claim to be is a good person that believes in God and our savior Jesus Christ.<BR/>I also believe in peoples right to not believe.<BR/>People should not be ridiculed for their belief.<BR/>None of us can be completely sure we are right.What we decide to have faith in is up to us individualy and people should not be swayed either way.<BR/>Peace.coyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07890361041570051401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1168634998292515722007-01-12T15:49:00.000-05:002007-01-12T15:49:00.000-05:00The suggestion that Xians even have morality is ki...The suggestion that Xians even have morality is kinda' funny to me. They preach and point their bony little fingers, but when it comes down to it these are the people who support the death penalty, and war, and every other thing that completely devalues human life. <BR/><BR/>But an unborn child they will KILL to protect. If hypocrisy is morality then Xians have it in spades.<BR/><BR/>It must be borne in mind that Xianity is a fairly recent invention in human history. As another poster pointed out, the ancient Greeks excelled without it. The Romans nearly conquered the world without it. The Buddhists lived and formed thriving societies for two thousand years without it. Everywhere Xiantiy has gone, war, strife, turmoil, and death has followed.<BR/><BR/>The numbers would suggest that Xians merely claim to be superior to all the rest of us pagans, but it ain't so.<BR/><BR/>The Judeo-Xian Bible is nothing but a means of scaring people into conformity. It is an attempt at governance that places the "haves" at the top and the "have-nots" at the bottom. It is written in vague and archaic language that people wildly misinterpret and then claim that they have the one true interpretation. Remember, the English version was sponsored by the tyrant King James, who most scholars agree significantly "had his way" with the interpretations of the origingal language to further his own agenda. You guys don't even know what that book *really* says.<BR/><BR/>Every living being knows the difference between right and wrong, it is ridiculous to suggest that without their hateful black book there would be chaos. Our entire society (USA) was formed based on Xian principles, and we are seen as the most immoral country on the face of the planet. Where is the stabilizing influence you guys preach about? It hasn't helped us yet, in fact it has created more enemies for itself than allies.<BR/><BR/>Only someone deluded by Xian lies would even consider that those jokers have a clue about morality. <BR/><BR/>In my blog, thedailyatheocrat.org, I submit that a society wherein the public practice and display of religion should be outlawed. We outlaw public nudity, mostly, we don't let people have sex in public, and we even abridge free speech. Religion should be no different.<BR/><BR/>Xians more moral? Right. And the Pope is a woman.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1168305463218461452007-01-08T20:17:00.000-05:002007-01-08T20:17:00.000-05:00I think it is a great blog and plenty of food for ...I think it is a great blog and plenty of food for thought - for the literalist or the what you have termed 'cherry pickers' or the middle of the road Christians - who don't believe the whole bible. <BR/><BR/>But the dialogue is way too long and your approaching too many things in too much room - it's just too much for any of those Christians to respond to - in my opinion. I would like to dialogue some of the points but this is way too much juice for the cup to hold - even if it is cherries. <BR/><BR/>Still I enjoy the blog and the responses are quite good also - thanks for some food for thought.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1168284025241698632007-01-08T14:20:00.000-05:002007-01-08T14:20:00.000-05:00Whatever Shermer left out (he left out very little...Whatever Shermer left out (he left out very little), one can add to.<BR/><BR/>I've said in another comment that Atheism is a philosophical position that forces one to find a new basis for morality, which is easier to do and perhaps healthier for the quality of life of human beings. Does living in such conditions as Iran under Ayatollah Khomeini qualify as "good" in God's eyes? If Pat Robertson became President in 1988 would the subsequent dystopian qualities of American society be "good" in God's eyes even though they would be unquestioningly detrimental to humankind living in that society?<BR/><BR/>Did the Crusades, Inquisition, Salem Witch Trials, Holocaust, Iran/Iraq war (it is often argued that Islam, Judaism, and Christianity worship the same god) look good in God's eyes? <BR/><BR/>Does anyone else see the very significant problem the above line of thinking this poses for humanity?<BR/><BR/>Atheists have a very wide variety of moral philosophies to explore, some better than others, that is true, but none tyrannical or totalitarian. One can start by reading Shermer's The Science of Good & Evil, where he argues against absolutism/dualistic (good/evil; black/white) morality. Another source I recommend is Ayn Rand's The Virtue of Selfishness.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1168178802354998062007-01-07T09:06:00.000-05:002007-01-07T09:06:00.000-05:00BDK,Divine Nature Theory (DNT) that you've invoked...BDK,<BR/><BR/>Divine Nature Theory (DNT) that you've invoked has no saving features from Divine Command Theory (DCT).<BR/><BR/>Atheist: Please define "good" for me.<BR/><BR/>Theist: Anything God does.<BR/><BR/>Atheist: And so how do you know when God acts, or that it is God doing something, rather than a devil, or just us humans?<BR/><BR/>Theist: God's nature is clearly different than human nature, and that of the devil.<BR/><BR/>Atheist: How do you know God's nature?<BR/><BR/>Theist: From Scripture and revelation.<BR/><BR/>Atheist: And how do you know <I>that something IS</I> Scripture [holy writings] or revelation?<BR/><BR/>Theist: Okay, you have a good point. We both get caught in vicious infinite regresses, or in circularity, if we do this all day. By fiat, I'll define God's nature as "perfectly good" and say that everything God does follows from God's own nature. I'll also presuppose that God is revealed in the Bible and that I can know God's nature from that.<BR/><BR/>Atheist: By fiat, I will define/presuppose "causing senseless and extensive suffering, when one need not cause it," as evil.<BR/><BR/>Theist: Well, what is your "basis" for such? Isn't that arbitrary?<BR/><BR/>Atheist: Isn't it circular and arbitrary to pick the Bible as your source of revelation, to claim that God is revealed therein, to claim this God has a perfectly good nature, and to justify it in a circular manner?<BR/><BR/>Theist: Well my starting point is to say I have found the ultimate goodness and ultimate authority -- this lends normativity to me.<BR/><BR/>Atheist: I don't see that you can "create" such a starting point, any more than I can avoid needing one by simply declaring the proposition itself authoritative and without need of some "person" behind it.<BR/><BR/>Theist: Fine, I'll agree with your definition of evil, so long as you'll exclude God from being that "one". Grant me that God can never be evil. You see, God always acts out of God's own nature, which is perfectly good.<BR/><BR/>Atheist: So you mean the act itself does not have a moral status, nor its consequences? Murder is not <I>de facto</I> wrong? All that we can pass valid moral judgment upon is <B>who</B> acted it out?<BR/><BR/>Theist: That is correct. If human beings decide to follow their nature [evil] and kill babies, it is evil. However, if God follows God's own nature and orders the slaughter of babies [1 Sam 15:3, etc], it is good.<BR/><BR/>Atheist: Let's see -- if God causes extensive suffering which God could have otherwise avoided, then "God's nature" is evil in my definition. If anyone else causes it, I would say the same about their own nature. You sound like a relativist. How do you avoid the charge of relativism?<BR/><BR/>Theist: But when God commands the slaughter of innocents in the OT, or allows children to rot of cancer, or does not limit the freedom of a child rapist, God has followed a perfectly good nature.<BR/><BR/>Atheist: But I thought we're trying to figure out whether something is good <I>ipso facto</I> by its origin [who did it] versus <B>what it is</B>. It doesn't seem to me to be very valid to say you can define God as good, and thus whatever God does as good, if you aren't actually defining morality by judging actions, or using consequentialism to some degree, objectively. Instead of being able to say, "X is evil," you have to qualify everything as contingent upon whether or not God is involved. This seems to remove any moral significance from God's supposed "goodness". It seems all you're doing is begging questions and committing circularity.<BR/><BR/>Theist: Well...how do you defend your use of logic? My God made it, and you can't use it without my God.<BR/><BR/>Atheist: *rolls eyes and walks away*nsflhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04129382545589470620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1168134205308228902007-01-06T20:43:00.000-05:002007-01-06T20:43:00.000-05:00One could add that the naturalist can be seen as h...One could add that the naturalist can be seen as having a certain fundamentalistic faith in science.Bill Arnoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01554120749272759748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1168018612519971782007-01-05T12:36:00.000-05:002007-01-05T12:36:00.000-05:00John: I meant intellectually unstable. Literalist ...John: I meant intellectually unstable. Literalist fundamentalism is just patently absurd at almost every level (except maybe psychologically, where it acts as a great anchor). It's just indefensible from an intellectual point of view, unlike nonfundy theology. <BR/><BR/>On the other hand, there is a new set of (lesser) problems for the nonfundamentalist. E.g., the cherry picking problem. I don't think this is as bad as you say, though. It is better to have this problem than the problem of believing patently crazy shit like the literalists must. The "cherry picking" problem is really the problem of hermeneutics, of leaving your intellect in the "on" position while approaching a text, leaving your knowledge of history, science, and the like "on" while thinking about the Bible. Ultimately, the nonfundy types tend to rely on faith when it comes to the ultimates: they don't dogmatically claim to have the one true foundation, the only basis for X. They tend to have more uncertainty, more tolerance, more understanding, more love toward others. That is, they are better Christians than their Fundy nutball counterparts.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1168006594307961632007-01-05T09:16:00.000-05:002007-01-05T09:16:00.000-05:00Blue Devil, I became a Christian non-fundamentalis...Blue Devil, I became a Christian non-fundamentalist around the years 1993-4, and I tried to maintain that unstable faith for as long as I could. But this period in my life was short-lived precisely because it is more unstable as a faith, in my opinion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1167981301862491582007-01-05T02:15:00.000-05:002007-01-05T02:15:00.000-05:00It's unfortunate that the literalists have so much...It's unfortunate that the literalists have so much sway that they can actually set the terms for theological debate in this country. Their version of Christianity, in the long run, is not stable. If someone (incorrectly) thinks that is the <I>only</I> Christianity, they will leave the fold when they start to think intelligently about what their philosophy entails. It seems, for the survival of anything but a kindergarten backwater theology, Christian nonfundamentalists need to speak loudly. In my religion courses I never met a real literalist. It must be weird to actually take classes from one.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1167956903730994802007-01-04T19:28:00.000-05:002007-01-04T19:28:00.000-05:00John,I have responded to your accusation about che...John,<BR/><BR/>I have responded to your accusation about cherry picking on <A HREF="http://billarnold.typepad.com" REL="nofollow">my blog</A> by quoting some great thoughts from a site called <A HREF="http://www.leavingfundamentalism.org/" REL="nofollow">Leaving Fundamentalism</A>. If I'm to be labeled a cherry picker, so be it...but that doesn't make me a non-Christian!Bill Arnoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01554120749272759748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1167866326138203362007-01-03T18:18:00.000-05:002007-01-03T18:18:00.000-05:00Here's the problem with my original solution. E.g....Here's the problem with my original solution. E.g., we have the cognitive machinery to recognize goodness, and we use it to recognize God's goodness. <BR/><BR/>Afterthought on my previous post.<BR/><BR/>If what I said is right, the question becomes one of the origin of this cognitive skill, of this 'faculty' we have for recognizing good things. <BR/><BR/>If the faculty is instilled in us by God, then we end up with the Euthyphro dillemma all over again. Of course we recognize him to be good: he designed us that way (that was the point of the 'brain chip' thought experiment). In this horn of the dilemma it just comes down to faith in God, and the theist's cocky pronouncements about morality come down to posturing.<BR/><BR/>That leaves us with the only reasonable option: the faculty evolved or developed independently of God. <BR/><BR/>This option, though, will be unpalatable to many Christians. The picture is this: we have a faculty for detecting moral and immoral things. It emerged naturally: God didn't direct its formation because he wanted to escape the DNT's Euthyprho analog. However, the operation of this faculty doesn't give us rational epistemic foundations for our morality. That can only come from god, who this faculty tells is good. God does help out by serving us judgments every now and then, helping us override this faculty. It's like the way we can be corrected when we think we saw a female face, but in fact our face recognition machinery made a mistake and it's a male. Your a man, baby!<BR/><BR/>All this would suggest that psychologically, we only need a little bit of God to be moral. Epistemically, in philosophy departments, we need God to ground things out.<BR/><BR/>But then the question is, why do we trust this faculty in the first place? Maybe evolution developed a moral sense that gets things wrong, and what Christians are worshipping is the Devil. <BR/><BR/>All in all, I think as in epistemology, so in morality: there are no foundations. We operate in midship and struggle along trying to make sense of the world and paint it a better place, where the moral hues are painted by our brain, not by God. <BR/><BR/>I argued about this in depth <A HREF="http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2006/07/how-subjectivism-undercuts-argument.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>. There I said, and I agree:<BR/>Just like we can apply concepts of flourishing and health to plants and ecosystems, so we can do the same for individual humans and cultures. A child confined to a dark room for the first six years of life would not flourish the way a child loved by two parents would flourish. You could then ask me to justify the claim that human life should flourish, or justify the claim that maximizing human flourishing is a good thing. Ultimately, I think the universe doesn't care if humans suffer or flourish, any more than it cares if flowers flourish. However, there are objective differences between flourishing and nonflourishing flowers, and the same goes for people.<BR/><BR/>[...]<BR/><BR/>Starting with the minimalist liberal moral kernel, that flourishing life is better than nonflourishing life, gets us a lot of mileage. It has produced the best governments in history.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1167863542356365072007-01-03T17:32:00.000-05:002007-01-03T17:32:00.000-05:00And there's still more. The euthyphro dilemna indi...<I>And there's still more. The euthyphro dilemna indicts any God as a foundation for morality with the exact same questions the theist may ask of us to justify our morality. After reading this link, answer me this, "Is God good?" And "do Christians have a rational basis for their claim?"</I><BR/><BR/>This is the crux. Since Euthyphro killed divine command theory, we are left with divine nature theory (DNC). <BR/><BR/>First, assume (for discussion) that God is Good, and that he only wishes good things, and those wishes are transparent to us. In this case the theist wins: there is a rational foundation for moral behavior. Whether we want to behave morally is a psychological question.<BR/><BR/>You are rightly attacking the first assumption (though the assumption that God's wishes could be transparent to us is very weak too). Assume there is a supernatural being. How do we know it is Good, i.e., that moral behavior would involve following its wishes?<BR/><BR/>One answer I can think of: we have the ability to recognize goodness just as we can recognize female faces or animal gaits. Based on this ability to discriminate good from not-good, I recognize that God is good based on what he has done. That is, the evidence points to his goodness. It offers the best explanation for (insert good things here like, I don't know, cute puppies). While you might say "Ah, now you say your morality is founded in this recognition machinery, so you don't need god, but psychological facts that we all share!" But here I'd appeal to the above distinction between psychology of morality and justification. I use my moral psychology to attribute properties to things (male, female, goodness), but epistemically, I justify the moral claims in terms of God, a God I recognize to be good. <BR/><BR/>JD Walters is a cocksure chap. He must have an answer to this.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1167848078326420512007-01-03T13:14:00.000-05:002007-01-03T13:14:00.000-05:00Blue devil said Addressing the title of your post,...Blue devil said <I>Addressing the title of your post, theists have an epistemic foundation for morality, so by hypothetical syllogism, so do Christians.</I><BR/><BR/>Then tell me what it is, and how it's to be applied. And tell me how their foundation is different from Jews or Muslims, or polytheists who believed in Zeus. And tell me how they can rationally justify such a foundation and what that morality tells them to do.<BR/><BR/>Okay, let's say that Allah exists as specified in the Koran and that he provides a foundation for morality. How would this affect the Christian claim to have one in their specific God, even without the Bible? Let's even grant that there is a foundation for morality in the philosopher's God. Where does this get anyone, even if true, with regard to knowing what to do? Nowhere, as I've argued. We must have a way to know what to do, and as I've argued theists do not. And if they don't, then they are in the same boat with the rest of us, with or without a foundation for morality.<BR/><BR/>But there's more, when it comes to having a superior foundation for morality, Christians can only have this if their faith is also rationally superior. I argued elsewhere <A HREF="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/01/christian-illusion-of-rational.html" REL="nofollow">that they don't have a rationally superior faith either</A>.<BR/><BR/>And there's still more. The <A HREF="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/01/christian-illusion-of-moral.html" REL="nofollow">euthyphro dilemna</A> indicts any God as a foundation for morality with the exact same questions the theist may ask of us to justify our morality. After reading this link, answer me this, "Is God good?" And "do Christians have a rational basis for their claim?"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1167845117390791822007-01-03T12:25:00.000-05:002007-01-03T12:25:00.000-05:00Then they will provide some specifics, like to lov...<I>Then they will provide some specifics, like to love and forgive, and so on. But I've countered that these virtues can be learned apart from God or the Bible</I><BR/><BR/>Another psychological claim. The key is whether such virtues can be rationally justified apart from God.<BR/><BR/><I>Christians have gotten it wrong on so many historical issues that they themselves cannot claim with a straight face how these virtues are to be properly applied</I><BR/><BR/>I think this is a good problem for those who want to say that the explicit laws and codes in the Bible (interpreted literally) is the foundation for their morality. Fish in a barrel. <BR/><BR/>But then there are the theists who have graduated from kindergarten theology and want to make the more general claim that only god allusions can ground moral justifications, but that it is often a struggle to see God's will in a particular situation. This isn't even particular to Christianity, but is a much more general epistemic claim. Addressing the title of your post, theists have an epistemic foundation for morality, so by hypothetical syllogism, so do Christians.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1167841371577619942007-01-03T11:22:00.000-05:002007-01-03T11:22:00.000-05:00I understand this distinction blue devil. Let's sa...I understand this distinction blue devil. Let's say a Christian believes he or she has a moral foundation for behavior found in God or the Bible. That would be an epistemological claim, and because the Christian will go on to argue that skeptics do not have such a foundation, theirs is a superior one. <BR/><BR/>I've argued that a Christian can claim this if he wants to. But I also argued that such a claim is completely empty of any content. What is it that a Christian is supposed to do? It does no good to make such a claim and not be able to tell me what it is that God or the Bible wants them to do. Now a Christian will further go on to claim that they know what God or the Bible wants them to do. Then they will provide some specifics, like to love and forgive, and so on. But I've countered that these virtues can be learned apart from God or the Bible, and that Christians have gotten it wrong on so many historical issues that they themselves cannot claim with a straight face how these virtues are to be properly applied to heretics, women, and people of different color. Adding to these questions I could ask a host of others that they themselves disagree with.<BR/><BR/>My claim is epistemological. I'm claiming that they do not have any superior moral epistemological foundation than the rest of us. We are all in the same boat. The only difference is that they claim they have one. But such a claim is vacuous.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1167807926397425652007-01-03T02:05:00.000-05:002007-01-03T02:05:00.000-05:00I think there are some problems with the logic of ...I think there are some problems with the logic of Shermer's argument.<BR/><BR/>He seems to equivocate on the term 'foundations of morality'. In one sense, he is talking about the psychological basis for somoeone's moral behavior. The second sense refers to the epistemic foundation for one's moral views. You can take a theistic view of one without the other. For example, if you think that the only philosophically adequate justification for moral claims must refer to god, you might also say that, as a matter of empirical psychological fact, humans are designed (or evolved) to behave in alignment with all (or many) of those precepts. But even if we were psychologically built to <I>not</I> follow the theistically justifiable morals (e.g., we were built to think that it is your duty to kill people you aren't related to), we could still <I>know</I> that it is wrong, and resist this urge, via our Christian epistemology.<BR/><BR/>That Shermer equivocates is clear from his quote. If God didn't exist, what would you do? This is a psychological question. But the person may simply throw up their hands and say "I don't know the answer to that psychological question, but I do know that if God didn't exist I wouldn't have a rational basis for any of my moral claims."<BR/><BR/>Even if the person says "I would behave in ways I now consider immoral", you can say that it shows their character is flawed, that there is something about their psychology that is defective, but it still wouldn't settle the epistemic question or undermine their Christian moral epistemology. If they were consistent, they'd just have to say their moral beliefs wouldn't be rationally grounded.<BR/><BR/>Since most of your post addresses such moral psychology concerns, rather than moral epistemology, I think it is unconvincing (I know you've addressed some of the epistemological issues elsewhere, but taken alone, this post wasn't convincing).<BR/><BR/>In sum, when they say they have a superior basis for morality, they are talking in the epistemic, not psychological domain. Or if they have a brain they are! If not, they should read your post.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1167786085511813322007-01-02T20:01:00.000-05:002007-01-02T20:01:00.000-05:00rich, i agree with you. I reject the ultra-calvini...rich, i agree with you. I reject the ultra-calvinistic view of "utter depravity" which basically says that a non-Christian is incapable of doing something good. I think that all people are capable of making moral decisions.<BR/><BR/>I also don't like it when certain kinds of Christians (see above) get the idea that they can just defer to the Bible as a perfect book of morals. They deny the fact that making moral decisions is a difficult responsibility that all people have regardless of their religion (or non-religion).Bill Arnoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01554120749272759748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1167785867700742832007-01-02T19:57:00.000-05:002007-01-02T19:57:00.000-05:00John, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree beca...John, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree because we don't agree on our basic definitions of what Christianity is. When I look at conservative evangelical theology I see something that has arisen late in history as a result of modernistic philosophy (mixed with the platonism that has always infected Christianity). That's an oversimplified assessment, but I hope it explains my basic view.<BR/><BR/>Shawn, when I said "overall" I meant the overall view of Christian thinkers. In other words, I was stressing that there will be plenty of Christian thinkers who I DO NOT think have a superior ethic. Does that make sense?<BR/><BR/>As far as the golden rule goes, I was actually referring to when Jesus said the greatest commandment is to love God and the second is to love your neighbor as yourself. The "loving God" component is something that I would guess sets this ethic apart from many other ancient philosophies. I also wouldn't reduce Christian ethics to a simple principle like that.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the discussion, by the way. I hope it doesn't seem like I'm dismissing your comments. It's just hard to know how to respond to something complicated like this in a simple and concise comment.Bill Arnoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01554120749272759748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1167743832901826292007-01-02T08:17:00.000-05:002007-01-02T08:17:00.000-05:00Yes, Bill, I think evangelical conservative Christ...Yes, Bill, I think evangelical conservative Christianity has the best chance at being right about Christianity as a whole, and by rejecting it I reject Christianity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1167743226813838252007-01-02T08:07:00.000-05:002007-01-02T08:07:00.000-05:00I understand how people turn the concept of loving...I understand how people turn the concept of loving God into a guilt trip, but I don't think it has to be that way.<BR/><BR/>The things you listed sound like some kind of merit-based system. I don't think God needs our money or our church attendance for us to show our love. And I don't know that it's about "showing" our love as much as <I>loving</I>. Maybe that's just semantics, but I think love is about action, not about saying the right things or making the appropriate gestures (i.e. going to church or praying). <BR/><BR/>It seems to me that you and I are starting from different premises. You seem to be equating fundamentalism with Christianity in general. Am I wrong?Bill Arnoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01554120749272759748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1167725030091242372007-01-02T03:03:00.000-05:002007-01-02T03:03:00.000-05:00Bill,I am with Frank in admiring non-literalists, ...Bill,<BR/><BR/>I am with Frank in admiring non-literalists, but I as well am bothered by several questions. However, you addressed his well enough such that further discussion would be off-topic.<BR/><BR/>However, what concerns me is your discussion of how a Christian can show a superior ethic. The Golden Rule espoused by Jesus was not unfamiliar to the ancient world; it is found in not only in the writings of his Jewish contemporaries but as well as in the ancient Eastern philosophy of Confuscious. The notion of performing actions which would either benefit or be neutral to others is s ingrained in the development of civilization it merely seems sensical. Though its roots are exactly untraceable (I can imagine such a notion developed prior to the development of writing mechanisms), it can easily be shown to be seperate from Christianity. Hence, it is difficult for me to see how Christians can lay claim to showing a superior ethic and lay claim to being the only ones whom possess such an ethic.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps I am putting words in your mouth, but the use of the word overall to end your statement is throwing me into the direction that you are claiming that Christians lay sole claim on a superior ethical system. If one claims that ethical systems which possess the Golden Rule are superior, that is that one ought to treat others according to how one wishes to be treated themselves, then this leaves me with a bothering question. How can such a criterion be shown to be the most superior? As well, it seems to exclude Christianity as possessing a claim of superiority overall since most humanistic philosophies utilize the Golden Rule as a basis; essentially this assessment reduces the claim to Christianity possessing a superior ethic and nothing else.<BR/><BR/>(Not to mention, what bothers me the most is how one establishes that the Golden Rule is superior outside of a priori argumentation, but that is deeper than I wish to travel at the moment)Shawn Wilkinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18308205724057373941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1167708425518564052007-01-01T22:27:00.000-05:002007-01-01T22:27:00.000-05:00Bill, I understand what it means to love our neigh...Bill, I understand what it means to love our neighbors, and I am kind to people. It's just part of who I am. But what could it mean for me to love God? On that we are at odds. Usually the Christian theistic view of loving God means that we should love our neighbors (I John 4:11). That's how Christians show God they love him. For you, it also means to pray, read the Bible, evangelize, attend church, to tithe, and to guard your thought life too! I don't have any of those ethical obligations, and I feel no guilt whatsoever for not doing those things as much as I believed I should. Only after I left the Christian faith did I realize what a guilt trip this was and how I could never pray enough, or evangelize enough, or tithe enough. For if God gave his all for me, I should give my all back to him (Romans 12-13; Ephesians 4-5). <BR/><BR/>As for the goals of my ethics goes, there are duty centered, or deontological goals, such as the duty we all share toward one another as human beings starting with our familes, moving outward to our friends, and to our society and the world at large. Augustine argued the same thing that the best way to help the world at large is to help those closest to us. And then there are happiness centered, or teleological goals, which I consider Aristotle's virtue centered ethics as interpreted by modern thinkers to be key, for happiness does not mean hedonism, or pure pleasure, but it includes intellectual, social, healthy, and financial happiness. Aristotle argued that happiness, as he meant by the word, is a means to no end. It is an end in and of itself. And I cannot be happy in this sense without those around me being happy, so I must try to make them happy in this sense too.<BR/><BR/>And I think those are twin goals, the only goals. They are obvious to everyone, and can be agreed upon by everyone, even if we may disagree with the particulars.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1167703070973018642007-01-01T20:57:00.000-05:002007-01-01T20:57:00.000-05:00That's a fair answer. I think the telos of Christi...That's a fair answer. I think the <I>telos</I> of Christianity may be an important factor here. Jesus said that we should love God and love our neighbors as ourselves and I think that should be the goal of a follower of Christ. What is the goal of your ethical system?Bill Arnoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01554120749272759748noreply@blogger.com