Irreligious but good – ethics classes for heathens

Mark T says:

10:22am | 23/04/10

Why should the religious care about secularists, atheists and the religiously lapsed? It’s not like you guys haven’t had your own way.  We aren’t telling you what you can teach? We just opt out.

Isn’t religion a politically correct view of the world? Or is your objection to leftist compassion.

Do the religious classes offer a choice and teach different religions? Surely the Bible is the main book used in Christian classes, with perhaps a superficial overview of other religions?

The fact is regardless of whether there is a God, religion is a man made concept that has been used for political gain, as they aligned themselves with Kings and dictators in the past. It has been secularism that has dragged the archaic views into the 20th and 21st centuries. Do you think that the sexual abuses would have been uncovered if we lived in the theocracies and monarchies of the past?

Teddie says:

10:31am | 23/04/10

“a choice between ‘conservative’ values and ‘progressive’ values” is a false dichotomy/false dilemma.

A choice between “values [of any kind] ‘’ and “indoctrination with one politically-correct world view” is a false dichotomy/false dilemma.

Choice from amongst different religions is not the same as a choice between religious classes or choice from amongst ‘[non-specified] secular classes.

Eric says:

11:09am | 23/04/10

Teddie, why are these “false dichotomies/dilemmas”?

You make an assertion, but you don’t provide any justification for your claim.

Teddie says:

11:37am | 23/04/10

oops, meant to say

‘Choice from amongst different religions is not the same as ““a choice between religious classes Or secular classes”“, or choice from amongst ‘[non-specified] secular classes’ ... i.e. the three options are independent of each other.

Eric, some so-called conservative values might be, er, “valued” more than others by both conservatives and progressives; and some conservatives might value “progressive values” more than comparable conservative values.  It seems best to consider each idea or value on its own merits, and in-context.

Craig says:

12:01pm | 23/04/10

Good ethics classes do not teach you what to think, but how to think. The problem with religious instruction is that it only teaches you what to believe and not what to think.

I count myself lucky, as my Religions Ed. teacher taught us about many religions, right from from shamen and witch doctors through Greco-Roman religions to more modern Judeo Chrisian, Moslem and Bhuddist beliefs. Although we weren’t presented with a way of thinking, at least we were given an overview of how others believed, where there were similarities and where there we differences.

Of course the whole debacle in NSW begs the question - “Why is there Religious Education in state run schools at all?” If a parent wants their children to have religious instruction, then send them to a religion backed school, Sunday school, or just maybe, try this for an idea ... “Consider teaching them your own values at home”. Parents taking part in their own child’s education? Oh the horror! That’s just not possible! They aren’t trained for it!

Eric says:

12:07pm | 23/04/10

Fair enough, Teddie. I admit my comment does have its flaws - though I hope that you can see beyond those technical issues to the larger point I was getting at.

“It seems best to consider each idea or value on its own merits, and in-context. “

I am completely in agreement with this. I would hope that any secular values lesson would do that.

My fear is that the agenda of such classes could be hijacked by one particular school of thought, rather than letting all schools have their say.

Teddie says:

12:39pm | 23/04/10

cheers, Eric.  I think they are going to discuss scenarios that don’t necessarily have a true answer.

I wish they would widen the scope in the curriculum to include simple philosophy, concentrating on logic, and it’s components such as formal argument, and - in turn - its components such as premisses, propositions, conclusions, and “soundness”.

David says:

01:01pm | 23/04/10

Eric, while you may have concern for a secular ethics curriculm being hijacked by a particular political interest, where is your fear of the same thing via the scripture classes?

Religion is almost inseperable from politics, even in Australia where it is considered poor form generally and thus become secretive, and has often been used to misrepresent the validity of a particular political ideology by in concordance with the supernatural deity of choice.

Eric says:

01:19pm | 23/04/10

A fair question, David.

I am not defending religious classes, just hoping that their replacements are worthwhile.

However, I would note that there is usually a choice between different religions, thus mirroring the diversity I would like to see in secular ethics classes.

All the same, I think a broad course that covers both religious and non-religious ethics from a variety of viewpoints would probably be the best alternative.

Kate says:

05:43pm | 25/04/10

Actually Eric there usually isn’t a choice. A local church will send SRE volunteers to the school and they will teach a broad-based, ‘non-denominational’ christianity. My school had a slight difference (a few catholics, who had been christened as such, went to Catholic SRE) but everyone else (Anglican, Baptist, Uniting, Lutheren, Episicopalion, etc) went to a single class taught by which ever denomination had approached the school first. That doesn’t really seem like a choice and I imagine that these days certain subjects eg the ordination of women, could not be covered in a way that would be representative of all so you’re stuck with the world-view of the church the teacher comes from.

Teddie says:

07:02pm | 25/04/10

Kate, unsubstantiated notions are still “unsubstantiated” and “notions” no matter what sect they come from.

The variety of notions today reflect the variety of notions before the canon was developed, as well as different interpretations since.

Woollett says:

10:40am | 23/04/10

How religion is interpreted also depends on many factors. Not all forms of Christianity interpret the Bible the same way. It is often the lament of those who are vocally supportive of religion that because of a lack of Christian beliefs there are no values. This course is obviously trying to remedy this factor.

Parents should teach values. Values should be taught in a broader context as well.

Chris says:

11:00am | 23/04/10

John,

You assume modern parents actually…parent, instead of sitting their spawn in front of a babysitting box.

Talon says:

11:21am | 23/04/10

It is true that most of those claiming to be religous have a skewed view of the world and questionable values.  I went briefly to a christian school and hated every minute of it.  Nuns pushed the word of god in nearly every class.  I was intelligent and pratical minded enough to see the attempt to change my personal values and to see their fantasy for what it was.

As parents we conciousely and also silently teach values and ethics to our children by example.  I have notice that my own children have adopted my values.

In the long term it would be advisable to provide a brief period of classes on social ethics as some of todays parents leave much to be desired.

In the short term maybe we need to teach/train parents with troublesome children as well.  I came from a backgound of having very little and know that it is not an excuse for poor and anti social behaviour.

Teddie says:

10:36am | 23/04/10

students are educated on all key religions in General Religious Education (GRE) - Year 3?  That includes trips to various venues such as cathedrals and mosques.

Talon says:

11:35am | 23/04/10

Very good.  I also agree with scrapping the 30 min scripture period but not in teaching of religion.  Unfortunatelly the interpritation of some religions do not agree with some of our more common social values.  For example the term “vengience is mine”.  (Note that I am not religous myself).

Vengience is not in the hands of men (yes and women) but the eyes of god.  This said, how did someone come up with the interpritation of an eye for an eye, death for a death?

All religions should be left outside the school gates unless praying is mandatory at specific periods of the day,

Trolldoll says:

04:08pm | 23/04/10

@Talon, the contradiction you’ve spotted is between the Old Testament and the New Testament, Old Testament is all “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” New Testament is very much, “Vengenance is mine, sayeth the lord” and “turn the other cheek”. small wonder that people get comfused when the Bible contradicts its self testament to testament, book to book and (probably even) page to page

clar_loves_jesus says:

08:05pm | 08/05/10

Troll Doll
The ‘eye for an eye tooth for a tooth’ is talking about olden day compensation. You have to read it in its context otherwise it does become contradictory.
The context is this: (Exodus 21:24-26)
24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

26 “If a man hits a manservant or maidservant in the eye and destroys it, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And if he knocks out the tooth of a manservant or maidservant, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the tooth.

If you are going to knock it, you better read it first otherwise you are contradicting yourself in the extent of your knowledge…

office girl says:

02:32pm | 23/04/10

You know, people like you really confuse me. I assume you are all for upholding people’s liberties as human beings, you believe that no one has the right to tell you what to do or think. And yet, you have no capacity to allow people to practise their religions and cannot accept that while someone may be religious that they could also be intelligent and capable of logical thought. Another argument that annoys me is people who say that anyone who is religious is too judgemental. Isn’t that just a judgement as well? Aren’t you just as bad if not worse. I am a practicing christian and have no judgement for anyone who thinks differently to me.
I don’t see why children who go to public schools shouldn’t have access to religious classes or ethics classes, if they should choose to participate. One argument above I believe was that parents should send their children to private schools for religious education. I’m certain there are families out there that can’t afford the ridiculous fees required to attend these schools. It also seems to me that this idea also encourages the isolation of religious families from the rest of the community! Something they neither want or deserve.

Chris L says:

02:59pm | 23/04/10

Office girl no-one is stopping you from following your religion and no-one plans to. It is the religions that keep trying to meddle in people’s lives and Archbiship Jenson’s ridiculous assertions are just another example. Of course, being accepting doesn’t mean we don’t find your religious beliefs funny. Forgive us for laughing.

office girl says:

03:19pm | 23/04/10

Well Chris, working by your logic, the archbishop has no need to have any more respect for your ideals that you do for his.
You may not be stopping me from practising my religion, but why is there any need to restrict children from being able to learn about it if they want to? Shouldn’t all students have a completely balanced education, the opportunity to hear all sides of an argument before deciding which way to go it their lives? I believe religious classes are just as important as ethics classes, and that a student who has experienced both will be more respectful and tolerant of all ideologies.

monkeytypist says:

03:39pm | 23/04/10

office girl, what you are attacking is a straw man.  Archbishop Jensen is angry because the proposal is that the kids who don’t go to Christian scripture classes have ethics classes of their own.  He doesn’t like the idea.  He wants the choice to be between Christian scripture classes and nothing.  It’s Jensen who is denying choice here, not anybody else.  Although, now that you mention it, why should scripture classes be held in state schools at all?  Hindu scripture classes aren’t held.  The purpose of these classes is to get children to *believe* in the Bible.  There’s a difference between teaching children about a religion or philosophy, and indoctrinating them in that philosophy.

officegirl says:

03:49pm | 23/04/10

Monkeytypist, I think that depends on the kind of religion classes you have access to at your school, and the type of people holding those classes. Mine were very balanced, and I think that’s the way it should be.  I’m not in support of the archbishop either (I think if you read my post I say the opposite, in that BOTH classes are important), and the people denying choice, are the people writing in here, who I am addressing. Just putting my point of view forward.

Hard science says:

11:28am | 23/04/10

You’ll never get rationality or altruism or logic from any diocese anywhere. Nor a mosque nor a temple nor anything that believes in magical sky-fairies and superstition.

KH says:

09:17am | 23/04/10

And what exactly is the difference then, between ethics and religion as to having the “right” to tell someone what is right and wrong?  Who said religion isn’t subjective/relative?  I personally think it is - written by men, thousands of years ago, conveniently making women the ‘cause’ of all ills in the world (an underlying cause of inequality that persists to this day), dictating to people how they should live, then making threats if they don’t do it (hell) and promises they never have to deliver if you shut up and do as you are told (heaven).

I would rather have my child taught to use logic and reason to come to a position, than be brainwashed by religion.  I resent the inference that I am not a good person - I think I am, and I don’t believe in your fantasy beings.

Eric says:

09:25am | 23/04/10

It is not the case that “if there is no God ... ethics can only be relative/subjectively determined”.

In fact ethics can be determined by evolution, as a set of behaviours that create optimal survival conditions for a human community. Thus, stealing, murder and the like are unethical because they harm the cooperative efforts that are needed for people to live.

No god is required to explain such ethics.

monkeytypist says:

09:32am | 23/04/10

The choice between God and moral relativity is a false one.  Plenty of well-developed universalist ethical systems do not require God; Kantian deontology probably being the most well-known example.  There’s also the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and a myriad of others.  In any case there are many people (including some Christians) who base their ethical system on consequentialist rather than universalist ethical systems - does that make a difference in practice?  Which is better? These questions are the sort we could ask when we study them.  And that’s not even to mention other systems like virtue ethics.

the apologist says:

09:36am | 23/04/10

...although I suppose the direction that this article suggests is the logical outcome of the state-based education system, so I can understand your perspective in that respect. I won’t be sending my kids into the system if ever I have any.

iansand says:

09:47am | 23/04/10

It is interesting that you equated a god requiring human sacrifice as part of the process of intercession as being the Christian version of god.  I interpreted it as a generalised hypothetical deity.  Possibly Chalmecatecuchtlz.

the apologist says:

10:32am | 23/04/10

@KH: “Who said religion isn’t subjective/relative?” Well, from your perspective it is. From my perspective, all religion that is not revelational from God Himself (thus making it objective to human experience) is subjective; but that which is revelational is objectively true (i.e. He has revealed Himself in Jesus Christ).
“And what exactly is the difference then, between ethics and religion as to having the “right” to tell someone what is right and wrong?” Well, from my perspective, given that the reality of God is objective – God Himself has every right to determine what is right and wrong, although it’s certainly not as simple as Him ‘telling us’ what to do.
You said: “I resent the inference that I am not a good person - I think I am, and I don’t believe in your fantasy beings.” Well, that’s the offence of the cross. You’ll note that I was not excluding myself from not being a good person. Tell me your conscience has never told you’ve done the wrong thing??
You’ve got a simplified and inaccurate view of the Biblical doctrine of women too – as it happens, mankind (men and women) are both responsible for rejecting God, and are accountable for their actions.

@Eric: from your perspective then: why is it unethical to kill people? Who says survival is desirable? And who would you be to tell me otherwise if I believed it wasn’t? If I hold those opinions, you can’t justifiably tell me my opinion is wrong.
From your perspective, ethics are a metaphysical creation of humanity. You might tell me that evolution determined them, but that’s no reason why I should ascribe to them. Theoretically, evolution may give the ‘how’ of ethical impulses, but it’s got no authority to condemn if I act against such impulses. If it’s a meaningless naturalistic universe, I can do what I want according to my own judgment and you’ve got no right whatsoever to tell me otherwise; thus ethical relativity.

@monkey typist: well, if it’s a false choice, apply said theories (which I’m very familiar with) and tell me this: why is it wrong for me to kill someone? Why does someone have the right to tell me that I shouldn’t do it if I think it’s right? (as a theoretical exercise of course, naturally I believe killing to be wrong)

@iansand: so where is Chalmecatecuchtlz’s revelation? I’d like to assess it. The revelation of the true God can be found in the Bible (just in case you’d like to assess as well…).

Steely Dan says:

10:40am | 23/04/10

hi again, the apologist

Why does God need to sacrifice himself for this perceived disobedience? How does that achieve anything? And doesn’t Chris’ comment still represent orthodox Christian theology?

“I thought I might correct you on this one too - a Biblical anthropology holds that no one is ‘really good’”
Perhaps, but Jensen goes further - he believes non-belief = Nazism and/or communism. Check out his comments over Easter.

James1 says:

10:49am | 23/04/10

How do you know the god of the bible is the true god, apologist?  And while we are at it, which bible?  The one edited 800-odd years ago? 

On another note, I find it a little sad that you are unwilling to expose your children to views contrary to your own.  If you ever have them, please realise that they are people, with a right to form their own views on the basis of their own process.

Peter says:

10:56am | 23/04/10

@ Eric, evolution aparantly has had millions of years to weed out murderers and crooks, but they still live amongst us.. Perhaps its got somthing to do with our common ancestry to bananas, fish and cashew nuts…

Steely Dan says:

11:02am | 23/04/10

@ Peter
And an omnipotent creator could have just got rid of them full stop.  But social norms have evolved, and for the most part they’ve been what most would describe as moral.

P.S. Science hates you, too.

Teddie says:

11:06am | 23/04/10

“” ...the only way to be restored is through Christ (which Christ Himself claimed: ‘no one can come to the Father except by me’). So if anyone is good, it’s by the merit of Jesus Christ. No-one is good of themselves. That’s the Christian position.”

So, those who don’t know Christ such as those in non-christian Indian, Chinese, Islamic cultures cannot be “restored”.  ... because they don’t know the stories.  Stories that someone wrote based on third or fourth hand narratives that claim that the central character claimed “” blah, blah, blah”

to say “No-one is good of themselves” is typical manipulative diatribe used to denigrate and capture peoples minds

Eric says:

11:18am | 23/04/10

@the apologist:

“why is it unethical to kill people?”

I said murder, not killing. And murder is anti-survival because it deprives the community of resources (people), and because it undermines trust (which is important for effective community relationships).

“Who says survival is desirable?”

Nobody “says” it. The world is simply what has survived. You should at least try to understand the theory of evolution before attempting to argue against it.

“And who would you be to tell me otherwise if I believed it wasn’t?”

Just someone with an opinion - like you.

As for the rest - this isn’t a justification for any particular opinion or ethical position. Merely an explanation of how ethics can arise in the absence of supernatural entities.

@Peter:

“evolution aparantly has had millions of years to weed out murderers and crooks, but they still live amongst us.”

The same could be said for heart disease, appendicitis, or any other human flaw you care to mention. Evolution isn’t perfect, and neither are we.

For those who posit a perfect creator, I would ask why the creation is so imperfect?

monkeytypist says:

11:22am | 23/04/10

@theapologist OK, very briefly, Kantian metaethics says that killing is wrong because it violates the categorical imperative.  Explaining the categorical imperative is complicated, but so is explaining the doctrine of the Trinity or the Incarnation, and I am sure you would not dispute the value of doing so as a teaching exercise.  Secondly, a consequentialist theory of ethics might or might not endorse a particular killing.  It’s impossible to determine in advance.  A consequentialist might argue that there are some circumstances where a killing may be justified (cutting off the rope of a person who has slipped while climbing a mountain and is pulling an entire hiking party to their deaths, for example).  But there are a great many consequentialist theories of ethics. Similarly virtue ethics may or may not endorse a particular act of killing, but some brand of virtue ethics could always hold that killing is not the action of a virtuous person.  The question: “is it always immoral to kill?” is a valid question that students should be permitted to examine.  If the answer is clear, it should be no less clear following the examination.  In any case, saying “you can’t teach that ethical system because it’s not compatible with Christianity” begs the question.  It’s not clear that an ethical system is prima facie inferior because it’s incompatible with Christianity.

Peter says:

11:50am | 23/04/10

@ Stealy Dan, I don’t hate science, but I don’t always accept that it is the absolute truth. Evolution is hardly a science, it’s just a theory. It can’t be tested, it can’t be repeated and it can not be proved. I would say that ethics that we have been taught in religion has had a large role to play in what we all consider ethical or unethical these days.

@ Eric, the creator (if there is one and i believe there is), is great. We have free will to abuse our bodies any in manner we see fit, abuse our enviornment in anyway we see fit and maybe some of these diseases wouldn’t exist if we all showed ourselves and our environment a little more respect.. or it could be like the old saying says “no-one is perfect”, doesn’t mean it make this creation any less magical or outstanding..

James1 says:

11:59am | 23/04/10

Likewise, Peter, the lack of a creator does not make the world and natural selection any less wondrous.

Peter says:

12:02pm | 23/04/10

@James1, then you accept that we are related to bananas. If evolution created something out of nothing, why can’t we repeat this process?

monkeytypist says:

12:13pm | 23/04/10

@Peter firstly, evolution doesn’t say anything about how life originated.  Evolution is something that explains how life operates.  The origins of life are dealt with by separate investigations, since they involve chemistry more than they do biology.  Secondly, evolution has been proven in multiple laboratory experiments - Richard Lenski’s experiments on e. coli being just one of many possible examples.  Thirdly, artificial selection - e.g. dog breeding - is a well understood and well-documented process.  It has happened in the case of the banana, which originally had seeds and was much smaller and not yellow.  Why is it so incredible that the same principle of selection for various characteristics could be operable without humans?

Steely Dan says:

12:15pm | 23/04/10

@ Peater
“I don’t hate science, but I don’t always accept that it is the absolute truth.”
Science doesn’t deal in absolutes, Peter.

“Evolution is hardly a science, it’s just a theory.”
Like germ theory is just a theory. Go on, lick the gutter, I dare you. ‘Theory’ doesn’t mean ‘hunch’, it means it has graduated from a hypothesis. Evolution is accepted science, like it or not.

“It can’t be tested, it can’t be repeated and it can not be proved.”
Incorrect. Try the ‘nylon-digesting bacteria’ for starters.

“I would say that ethics that we have been taught in religion has had a large role to play in what we all consider ethical or unethical these days.”
And I’d say that secular reasoning has had a lot to do with what religions say is ethical - and plays a greater role as time goes on. Don’t like slavery? Well done, you’re now more moral than the Bible. Real guilt forced Christians to justify their opposition to slavery by actively misinterpreting their Holy text. Ethics is a lot older than the OT, Peter.

Peter says:

02:02pm | 23/04/10

@ Monkeytypist and Stealy Dan, I can only laugh at your e-coli or nylon-digesting bacteria theories. And with regards to dog breeding, I don’t care how many times you breed dogs, your never going to end up with a monkey, let alone a human beings. Please give us something to work with here….

Craigles says:

02:16pm | 23/04/10

... our common ancestry to bananas, fish and cashew nuts…
@ Peter 11:56am | 23/04/10

That is a proposition you ought to be able to argue better, or it is a silly one.

Nonetheless, the mechanisms by which those separate entities reproduce and evolve are the same - DNA

Steely Dan says:

02:17pm | 23/04/10

@Peter
“I can only laugh at your e-coli or nylon-digesting bacteria theories.”
How academic.

“I don’t care how many times you breed dogs, your never going to end up with a monkey, let alone a human beings.”
Firstly, nobody is suggesting that dogs could would or could evolve into monkeys or human beings. We’ve already shown that evolution can change the genetic make-up of a population over time. The onus is on you to show that their is a magical limit to the amount of genetic change that a population can undertake.

Peter says:

02:37pm | 23/04/10

@ Stealy Dan, C’mon. You raise the dog breeding scenario and then you tell me it means nothing anyway. Any dog breeding is a deliberate human intervention (usually). Like tomatos, you can cross breed those to, but your not going to end up with beans, bananas or peanuts. I might not be a scientist and maybe i didn’t spend my whole life in school so I can learn to waffle on about bullshit that means nothing. The onus is on those that believe in evolution to prove it to the rest of us because this is the rubbish that is taught in schools.

the apologist says:

02:44pm | 23/04/10

@Steely Dan: Hi again Dan ?
You said: “Why does God need to sacrifice himself for this perceived disobedience? How does that achieve anything? And doesn’t Chris’ comment still represent orthodox Christian theology?”
The sacrifice of Christ is needed basically because God is a God of justice. Just as in a court room there are penalties for breaking the law - and there is justice executed upon the law-breaker, so too we deserve justice for breaking God’s law (sinning). The Bible says “the wages of sin is death”. Thus, we are condemned to death for sinning against God by disobeying His law. The death of Christ was a substitutory sacrifice on our behalf – He was the ‘sinless one’. On the cross, He took the punishment of God’s justice against sin for all who put their faith in Him. His sacrifice saved us from death row and restored us to God – provided you put your trust in Him. Well, Chris’ comment is consistent with orthodox Christian theology in as far as it goes, but I think it misses way too much to be even close to adequate. Also, from the Christian perspective, it’s no ‘story’, the Bible presents itself as revelation from God.

@James1: God as He reveals Himself in the Bible presents a revelation to man in the form of the Bible. It claims to be revelation, and I have put my faith in His word. Any knowledge of the God over and outside of all creation must be revelational; and the Bible presents a consistent revelation. Certainly I have found it to be entirely self-consistent every time I’ve put it to the test. As for which version? Whichever most faithfully represents the original manuscripts.
As for my children’s education – if I don’t teach them someone else will (certainly I am responsible for them as their father – I believe); and I’m certain that they won’t have any problems with indoctrinating them with their worldview; which from my perspective is highly damaging. Do you need to let your kids taste poison to prove it’s bad? I’ll share contrary views, but I’ll do it from a consistently Christian viewpoint, just as atheists presumably present Christianity to their kids (if at all) from an atheist perspective. In the words of Joshua, “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” When they are children, I believe God has called me to be responsible for them – but when they come to the age where they are responsible for themselves, I will respect their right to live their own lives and of course make their own decision. Don’t let people fool you into believing there’s such a thing as a ‘neutral education’.

Craigles says:

02:56pm | 23/04/10

Dog breeding is artificial selection, a variation on natural selection.  Both caused various genes to increase or decrease in frequency from generation to generation

Cheshire Cat says:

03:00pm | 23/04/10

@ Peter I can only laugh at your e-coli or nylon-digesting bacteria theories.

Laugh all you like. doesn’t make the statement untrue. These are verifiable ongoing scientific experiments.

Peter says:

03:05pm | 23/04/10

@ Craigles… Here you go, were related to bananas aparantly and presumably snails, rats, e-coli and fish.. Don’t take my word for it..

http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/

Your allowed to believe this, but don’t put down people of faith for believing otherwise, because the aethist view of things is even more preposterous..

Peter says:

03:15pm | 23/04/10

@ Cheshire Cat.. What about nylon-digesting bacteria? Are you suggesting these things might evolve into the x-men one day? Bacteria and human beings (just incase you haven’t noticed) are quite different species…

iansand says:

03:19pm | 23/04/10

The apologist - I may be wrong, but I suspect there are very few courts in which the judge sentences himself or herself for the transgressions of the prisoner.

Steely Dan says:

03:25pm | 23/04/10

@ Peter
“C’mon. You raise the dog breeding scenario and then you tell me it means nothing anyway.”
Actually, monkeytypist raised it.  And I don’t recall saying it means nothing. I’m saying that there is no reason to believe that the offspring of today’s dogs will ever be homo sapiens.

“Any dog breeding is a deliberate human intervention (usually).”
One of the reasons I raised the nylonase bacteria, to show that it’s not just human breeding techniques that help populations evolve.

“Like tomatos, you can cross breed those to, but your not going to end up with beans, bananas or peanuts.”
You seem to think that evolution means one immediate, smooth change from one currently existing organism to another currently existing organism in a short space of time.  Homo sapiens evolved from animals we would call apes, but not from any of the species that we see today.  We would expect that in millions of years time, the dogs of today could have ancestors which we would not consider to be dogs at all, and we would have no reason to expect that they would be of a species that exists today. And we wouldn’t expect to see radical changes in the short time that we’ve been observing nature. (Yes, the world is older than 10,000 years)

“The onus is on those that believe in evolution to prove it to the rest of us because this is the rubbish that is taught in schools.”
The evidence is there.  The onus is on you to educate yourself to a level where you can understand the evidence that the scientific community continues to produce.

monkeytypist says:

03:33pm | 23/04/10

Peter, please don’t misrepresent people.  Nobody said the dog-breeding scenario “means nothing” (and I brought it up, not Dan).  What Dan actually said was:

“We’ve already shown that evolution can change the genetic makeup of a population over time.  It’s not impossible, and it’s not stupid.  There’s no arbitrary limit to it.  The onus is on you to show that their is a magical limit to the amount of genetic change that a population can undertake.”

And hint: saying “I don’t believe it” or “that’s laughable” is not an argument.

Steely Dan says:

03:37pm | 23/04/10

@the apologist
I’m not sure the ‘God as judge’ analogy works – judges are (in theory at least) accountable to the state, and are typically not the authors of the legislation they help to uphold.  Why would God choose to go through the theatrics of substitutional self-sacrifice when he could simply absolve us of the alleged sin and ‘restore us to God’? God couldn’t be forced to sacrifice anybody to himself - it looks like a transparent attempt to be consistent.

Chris L says:

03:46pm | 23/04/10

I suspect Peter is a troll. I’ve seen him on other blogs misinterpreting Evolution and Abiogenesis, and how scientific theory works. He has had these things explained to him numerous times and still goes on with “Evolution says we are fish” statements. Granted this is in the same realm as saying religious people have an imaginary friend, but the truth about science is in numerous peer reviewed papers backed with independent and rigorous verification whereas the only proof people can point to for their imaginary friend is that “the bible must be true because it says it’s true”.

the apologist says:

03:48pm | 23/04/10

@Eric:
“Nobody “says” it. The world is simply what has survived. You should at least try to understand the theory of evolution before attempting to argue against it.”
I wasn’t attacking evolutionary theory (in fact I was quite deliberately avoiding doing so), I was attacking the possibility of legitimatising ethics from a naturalistic worldview (which evolutionary theory is founded in); which you haven’t defended really.
You said: “Just someone with an opinion - like you. As for the rest - this isn’t a justification for any particular opinion or ethical position. Merely an explanation of how ethics can arise in the absence of supernatural entities.” But you still haven’t proved to me that ethics aren’t relative; you’ve more or less backed off and admitted that it’s all relative/subjective. Can you give me a reason why ethics should not be whatever I want it to be?
@monkeytypist: ok, you’ve outlined the theories for me, and analysed my question from each one – well done. But you’ve already assumed by following the logic of each one that I’ve accepted the assumptions of each position as legit. So further, I would question each approach as follows:
Kant: why should I accept the categorical imperative as legitimate and accurate? (and I am familiar with the imperative)
Consequentialist: this position basically assumes that ‘the greatest good’ is desirable. Why should I ascribe to that? And how do I define ‘good’ anyway?
(you might have to get a bit more specific with ‘virtue’ ethics…)
But to my mind, you’ve only strengthened the relativity/subjective nature of yours and non-theological positions. You’ve put to me: ‘well, here are a number of perspectives on why it may be wrong to kill somebody, but while not agreeing with one another, each is potentially legit’. That sounds pretty relativistic to me, and I certainly don’t find it compelling in terms of determining whether or not I behave ethically. Please comment if you think I’m being unfair.

Let’s get more specific. I tell you that I am planning on killing a friend of mine because I think there’s nothing wrong with it, and I feel like doing it. Could you convincingly argue that I’d be doing the wrong thing? I’m not sure that you’ve identified if you ascribe to an ethical theory, so you might have to ‘hop off the fence’.
You said: “In any case, saying “you can’t teach that ethical system because it’s not compatible with Christianity” begs the question.  It’s not clear that an ethical system is prima facie inferior because it’s incompatible with Christianity.” I wasn’t saying that you can’t teach an ethical system because it’s not compatible with Christianity (although I believe that), I was expressing my dissatisfaction with the theoretical consistency and validity of the possibility of ethics in a universe with no God. So I wasn’t actually making the comparison you’ve inferred.

Eric says:

03:56pm | 23/04/10

@the apologist:

You really haven’t addressed any of my points.

I have made my position clear: Ethics can be seen as arising from objective evolutionary conditions of survival.

The fact that you don’t understand my argument does not make it invalid.

Peter says:

04:07pm | 23/04/10

@ Chris L, name calling mate? Is that why you enter these blogs? To call people names and insulting people of faith with terms like imaginary friends? You are in every sense of the word a troll yourself, because whatever failing i may have, i don’t think i have ever stooped to such a low level of name calling on these things. Anyway, i don’t know what science you like to believe in, but if you accept your related to bananas, your quite welcome to believe that. Far be it from me to try to convince you otherwise…

Chris L says:

05:36pm | 23/04/10

My apologies Peter. When I said troll I was referring to the practise of “trolling” where people try to get an angry response by submitting inflamatory posts. I was not comparing you to the mythological creature.

My references to “imaginary friend” is due to the fact that this being you believe in cannot be seen, heard or measured in any way and has the same benefits and involvement as any childhood imaginary friend.

I assumed you were trolling because your statements about “we used to be fish/bananas/whatever” as your description of evolution show a wilfull ignorance of the subject matter which I wouldn’t normally believe possible.

Peace

Craigles says:

05:51pm | 23/04/10

@  Peter says: 04:05pm | 23/04/10 “”“we’re related to bananas aparantly and presumably snails, rats, e-coli and fish.. Don’t take my word for it..

darwins-theory-of-evolution.com “”“

Peter, that is a creationist/ID nonsense site.  You’d be better looking at something like wikipedia and learning properly about evolution.

monkeytypist says:

08:12am | 24/04/10

@apologist: if you accept that different ethical systems exist, then of course they are going to come to different conclusions on what is ethical and what is not; otherwise there wouldn’t really be a difference.  Therefore acknowledging that different systems exist *automatically* gives rise to “relativism” in the strict sense.  It does not necessarily follow, however, that familiarity with or use of (an) ethical system(s) other than Christianity automatically leads to inconsistency (not a problem for many people; plenty of people have inconsistent ethics) or objectively worse ethics (like not being able to advise someone not to kill somebody).  Nor does it establish that Christianity itself is a superior brand of ethics.

Being able to argue that something is wrong from multiple perspectives rather than just one (which is assumed to be automatically valid) strengthens, rather than weakens one’s case.  And if different perspectives disagree, then they disagree; so what?  I’m sure you admit that it’s possible to use scripture to back up different responses to a dilemma, and that that itself doesn’t weaken the value of scripture in making ethical judgments.  In practice, I believe that I would be able to convince you that certain specific actions would be wrong, without having to resort to “God commands you”.  I’d be able to do that because you’re a person who is able to consider things from a number of potential perspectives, which, whatever your ethical system, is a necessary trait for behaving ethically.

The reason before that I brought up Christianity is that you imply that a system that isn’t reliant on divine command must perforce be inconsistent and “relativistic” (not clear what you mean here unless you mean not asserting the existence of absolute good, which, among others, Kantian ethics does).  Not only does that assume that Christianity *is* ethically consistent, it also still begs the question.  Simply responding “but why should I accept the core premise of consequentialism?” is getting close to being disingenuous; implying that only the core premise of Christianity requires no justification for acceptance, and that it can be used as proof for itself.  There are plenty of explanations that consequentialists or others use to justify their core principles, and, with respect, these are more sophisticated than saying “we have a reason not to kill someone despite the fact that we’d sometimes like to”.  The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is an easily accessible online resource if you’d like to investigate these in more detail.

Matt Stewart says:

05:16pm | 26/04/10

Peter, you are being exceptionally disingenuous here.  We have had the debate about one modern species evolving in to another modern species (this does not happen) on a different thread and you lost it unequivocally - with help from your own source!  You lost it, you know you lost it, you lost it badly.  Yet you drag it up the same strawman time and time again.  You are a dishonest debater, putting forward arguments you know to be false.  People engage with you and your posts respectfully (usually), but you behave dishonestly.  Lift your game, or stop posting.

the apologist says:

08:26am | 27/04/10

@iansand: “The apologist - I may be wrong, but I suspect there are very few courts in which the judge sentences himself or herself for the transgressions of the prisoner.”
No, it’s more like the judge (God), passes sentence, and the Son (also God – I think the doctrine of trinity and its associated complexity has been alluded to, but I won’t comment just now on that matter specifically) steps in and says “I’ll take the death penalty on this persons behalf.”  Naturally analogies are not comprehensive, but they are useful in as far as they go. This is why Christian’s are always singing about Amazing Grace.
@Steely Dan: Well, as I said above, analogies have their limits – but basically it is consistent with the Christian position. The disparities you raise are dealt with however. From the Christian perspective: God is the determiner of right and wrong; He is in fact ‘right’ personified. All that is ‘wrong’ is that which is contrary to who He is. As the Creator of all, He is the final authority, and the Bible actually says that from him all authority flows. He is accountable to no-one, but given He is ‘good incarnate’ (for want of a better way of expressing that) – all His judgments are true and right. The authority of earthly judges is derivative (as you mention), and they are only consistent in that they uphold good judgment and justice. If you can imagine an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, spirit who is all together good with no darkness at all – you’ll be on the way to understanding the Christian God.
Following from who He is, justice is necessary when ‘wrong’ occurs. You can’t deny the human urge for justice – it is an aspect of the divine imprint upon us. It is precisely because justice matters that God cannot simply wipe the slate clean in the way that you suggest. Imagine if a murderer came before a judge and the judge said: “it is within my power to absolve you without accounting for your actions; you are free to go.” This is what God would be doing if He acted in the way you suggest. Only if He was evil and unjust could He do such a thing, and as I have gone to great pains to point out, He is not evil. Not a shadow of evil is in Him. In doing so He would be saying ‘doing the wrong thing doesn’t matter’. It would be inconsistent with His very being to dismiss sin without accounting for it. Far from theatrics, the sacrifice of Christ exemplifies just how much justice and righteousness matter – and more so, they exemplify and personify what God was willing to do to restore us to life, rather than condemn us to death.

the apologist says:

08:30am | 27/04/10

@Eric: Quite so, but this is only the case because you didn’t address mine! I think we are discussing the term ‘objective’ from different perspectives.
At any rate given your position is this: “I have made my position clear: Ethics can be seen as arising from objective evolutionary conditions of survival.” I would analyse it as follows.
You say that they have arisen objectively as a result of evolutionary process. Given that evolution is a purely biological process, how then did ethical standards (which are metaphysical in nature) come to be objective?? Did the evolutionary process hardwire a set of moral principles into our makeup?? How can we scientifically analyse the nature of these ethical principles?? Are they universally consistent standards??
The nature of knowledge and rational thought does not neatly link with evolution in the way that you suggest (and I’m really resisting raising the argument of the validity of evolution at the moment). In a naturalistic worldview (which evolution stems from), rational thought and metaphysical concepts (of which ethics would be one) are constructs which we invented (thus my accusation of ethics being purely subjective in a naturalistic worldview) upon attaining the ability to self-consciously ‘think’.
If I’m reading your position rightly, you would say that the concept of morals was developed objectively through evolutionary process; but do you see there being a difference between the existence of morals in us (which you say are objectively there via evolutionary process), and the content of the morals themselves?? (which from your naturalistic worldview must be a mere metaphysical and ideological construct and necessarily subjective in nature).
Even if I granted your position based upon evolution - I could still argue that although the existence of morals might have arrived ‘objectively’ in your sense, the content that we understand in morals is still subjectively determined.
To try and highlight my original concern – answer me this from your perspective: If I said to you that murder is fine, and I was going to murder someone because I wanted to and didn’t like them; would you be able to convince me that this was wrong from your perspective? I would contend that you have no ground whereby you could convincingly tell me that murder in the way that I suggested was objectively wrong.

Steely Dan says:

11:22am | 27/04/10

@the apologist
“From the Christian perspective: God is the determiner of right and wrong; He is in fact ‘right’ personified.”
So why did he have to send someone/himself to be killed? According to you, God is justice itself. His options were: send his son/himself to be tortured, killed and resurrected in order to save mankind; or, do none of that and save mankind.

“Imagine if a murderer came before a judge and the judge said: “it is within my power to absolve you without accounting for your actions; you are free to go.” This is what God would be doing if He acted in the way you suggest.”
This would be very wrong for a human judge in our judicial, but not wrong at all for your god. If god does it, its just.  When god healed people, it was just. When god killed people, it was just.  And god did ‘wipe the slate clean’. He just did it in a very long-winded, abstract manner.  He sent his son/himself to be tortured, killed and resurrected in order to wipe the slate clean – and that’s what supposed to have happened.  Why not just wipe the slate clean?  Why complicate it?  There is no action your god can do that would be evil.

the apologist says:

12:58pm | 27/04/10

Ah, I see the perspective you’re arguing now. But the god you’re suggesting is not consistent with the Biblical revelation of God. You essentially argue: “If god does it, it’s just.” No exceptions, He has a free ticket to do absolutely anything regardless of what you or I think about it. He could blow the world up and it would be just.
From one perspective, your argument is accurate. God is bound by nothing and no one but Himself. He is all-powerful and unlimited. The thing with the standard of justice is that God did set the bar; He has revealed to us what justice is – and it is not the unqualified actions that you are suggesting. In a sense God is bound – bound to be consistent with who He is.
God has revealed the standards for justice in His law – He has revealed the law (which is consistent with Himself, and a pure expression of His character - this is the sense in which I meant God is justice; nevertheless, justice is not God! it’s a facet of His absolute character) by which we can perceive the nature of this justice. So He has revealed just standards – which are consistent with Himself – but by the very nature of those standards it’s impossible that He should be unjust and act inconsistently with those standards.
So with my example of the unjust judge, just as the judge cannot freely let a murderer go unpunished (because it is unjust), so too God cannot leave sin unpunished because it is unjust according to the nature of justice (which He has revealed). For Him to wipe the slate clean in the way that you suggest is unjust – because justice itself has qualified it to be so.
You said “If god does it, its just.” Exactly, which is why He doesn’t forgive sin without qualification, because that is unjust. Doing wrong has consequences. 
“When god healed people, it was just. When god killed people, it was just.” Well healing someone hardly needs to justified – but every account of God killing someone in the Biblical record is in accordance with justice; that is, those killed had broken the law, and justice was being executed on them (there are things that are worthy of death according to God’s law). There is no record of Him killing anyone without the example being qualified and consistent with His revealed standard of justice.

You said: “And god did ‘wipe the slate clean’. He just did it in a very long-winded, abstract manner.  He sent his son/himself to be tortured, killed and resurrected in order to wipe the slate clean – and that’s what supposed to have happened.  Why not just wipe the slate clean?  Why complicate it?”  I hope my defence so far has highlighted why these comments are inconsistent with the Biblical account. As you say, He has wiped the slate clean (provided you put your faith in Jesus) – but through Jesus was the only way it was possible to do so while still being consistent with His revealed standard of justice. To wipe the slate clean without accounting for wrongs is inconsistent with the law He revealed – and is therefore unjust (thus the reason why He didn’t do it that way – because it would have been unjust).
Lastly, you said: “There is no action your god can do that would be evil.” This is true, and it follows that since He can do no evil, there are actions that He cannot do (evil actions). Thus there are verses in the Bible such as the one that says “it is impossible that God should lie” – to do so would be evil. As Jesus said, there is none good but God – all God’s actions are good, it is we who act inconsistently with Him (and thus do evil).

According to the Bible, we reflect this justice in that we are created in His image – although given our fallen nature, we have corrupted it because of our disobedience. Nevertheless, you cannot deny this somewhat strange urge that is universally held by humans of justice. From our earliest days we say ‘that’s not fair’. It’s in our very nature to delight in justice. Every time you experience or see justice you get that feeling of either ‘serves him right’ or ‘about time I got what was due to me’. To see the guilty unpunished outrages us. It’s fundamental. Unlike us however, God is righteous, and will execute justice perfectly and absolutely; and really, we should desire no less (imagine the possibility of all the worlds wrongs being set right? everyone desires that - if only by their own perverse standards). The thing is, we’re all guilty. I know which side I want to be on when justice is realised, and that’s justified in Christ (the door is open for you too if you would accept it). If I’m standing in my own righteousness before the judge, I’m as good as dead under God’s law.
Is this giving you any more insight or do you find it unsatisfactory? If you see holes, I’d appreciate your comments so I can either clarify or you can nail me.

Tone says:

01:37pm | 27/04/10

“created in his image”, yet it has not revealed itself to us?

so, is “created in his image” pride or arrogance?

Steely Dan says:

02:33pm | 27/04/10

“In a sense God is bound – bound to be consistent with who He is.”
So you’re saying this is a character quirk?

“So He has revealed just standards – which are consistent with Himself – but by the very nature of those standards it’s impossible that He should be unjust and act inconsistently with those standards.”
So these standards are something that we should follow?  Is he only ‘following’ his own standards so that we might do likewise?
“For Him to wipe the slate clean in the way that you suggest is unjust – because justice itself has qualified it to be so.”
It’s only unjust because he chose to do something else (which made the ‘something else’ just). 

“Exactly, which is why He doesn’t forgive sin without qualification, because that is unjust. Doing wrong has consequences.”
Not for god though, obviously.  Perhaps he doesn’t forgive ‘sin’ without qualification, but he does change the qualifications.  If a judge was to do this, we’d have every right to be angry.
 
“Well healing someone hardly needs to justified ”
I agree.  But do I detect some secular ethical reasoning?

“There is no record of Him killing anyone without the example being qualified and consistent with His revealed standard of justice.”
If you believe you’re sinful just for being human, he can attack all as being guilty – newborn and elderly tyrant alike.  But he’s certainly not consistent in his punishment.  How many people in Pharaoh’s position lived plague-free?

“As you say, He has wiped the slate clean (provided you put your faith in Jesus) – but through Jesus was the only way it was possible to do so while still being consistent with His revealed standard of justice.”
This implies there was some sort of precedent for sacrificing himself/his son.  Imagine if the hypothetical judge said, “You are guilty of murder. But you can go free so long as you worship me, I’m off to kill my son for your sins.” We can see that it’s not just in any sense that we can fathom – and how is that consistent with anything?

“Nevertheless, you cannot deny this somewhat strange urge that is universally held by humans of justice.”
I don’t.  But we have good explanations for why this is that don’t require supernaturalism.

“If you see holes, I’d appreciate your comments so I can either clarify or you can nail me.”
Given the crucifixion context, that’s just blasphemous.

the apologist says:

08:48am | 28/04/10

@Monkey typist: You said: “if you accept that different ethical systems exist, of course they are going to come to different conclusions on what is ethical and what is not.  Therefore acknowledging that different systems exist *automatically* gives rise to “relativism” in the strict sense.”
Well, I think you’ve admitted my point here. As you say, these different systems highlight the relativism of ethics from a naturalist perspective. They come to different conclusions on what is ethical; one says something is right, the other may say it is wrong. You can’t accept both conclusions as correct because they contradict. True, it may be possible to entirely accept say Kant’s ethical system (and act consistently within that framework – as you say, it is possible to still be consistent), but I think Kant’s approach is merely relativism systematised – it exists in what can only be a relativistic naturalistic universe. It’s his opinion (or ethical approach as you say), and I don’t have to accept it – nor does anyone else (in a consistently naturalistic universe). I cannot accept Kant’s system because the fault lies at it’s very presupposition. His starting point of a purely naturalistic universe does not allow for the authority that he claims. Who is he to suppose that his opinion of ethics has any sway on me except by my acceptance thereof??
As for Christianity, as I posed initially, I believe the existence of God allows for such thing as objectively right moral standards. This is the fundamental difference between theistically centred ethics, and anthropologically centred ethics.
You said: “Being able to argue that something is wrong from multiple perspectives rather than just one (which is assumed to be automatically valid) strengthens, rather than weakens one’s case.  And if different perspectives disagree, then they disagree; so what?”
I couldn’t disagree more. If different perspectives disagree, I cannot accept both as correct, and therefore cannot validate the approach you suggest of using contradictory systems.
You said: “I’m sure you admit that it’s possible to use scripture to back up different responses to a dilemma, and that that itself doesn’t weaken the value of scripture in making ethical judgments.” I’m not sure what you mean here. Do you mean it’s possible to use Scripture to suggest to viable yet different moral appraisals of a situation? I’m convinced that Scripture presents a unified ethical approach to life. Perhaps you could exemplify to illustrate?
You said: “In practice, I believe that I would be able to convince you that certain specific actions would be wrong” Well, let’s put that to the test. Hypothetical situation: I extremely dislike someone, and decide that I would like to kill them. I see nothing wrong with this scenario according to my own judgment. Convince me that it is wrong (and when I say wrong, I mean wrong, not just convincing me not to do it on some other grounds).
You said: “The reason before that I brought up Christianity is that you imply that a system that isn’t reliant on divine command must perforce be inconsistent and “relativistic” (not clear what you mean here unless you mean not asserting the existence of absolute good, which, among others, Kantian ethics does).”
My essential criticism (clarified) is that in a purely naturalistic/materialistic universe (which is the dominant perspective in Western civilisation at present) – ethical relativism is the only logical possibility. So yes, theistic ethics I believe is the only approach that overcomes this problem. As for Kant’s supposedly objective approach, as above, it’s merely his opinion in a naturalistic universe, and if I don’t accept his opinion there’s no ground for his claim of them being objective and binding upon me. It would be quite arrogant for him to suppose that his opinion is ultimately binding on everyone.
You said: “Not only does that assume that Christianity *is* ethically consistent”. I’m happy to make that claim and defend it. Happy for you to challenge it too.
You said: “Simply responding “but why should I accept the core premise of consequentialism?” is getting close to being disingenuous” I disagree. I want logical and rational argument before I accept the premise of the position, how can I accept the rest without being convinced of the foundation? I assure you, it is no insincerity or mockery on my part in questioning these premises.
You said: “There are plenty of explanations that consequentialists or others use to justify their core principles” I do concede that I have not done these principles justice in my discussion as you point out – I would however still question such principles. I suppose it’s beyond the capacity of this forum to do so, so thanks for the reference to the Encyclopedia.

the apologist says:

12:39pm | 28/04/10

“So you’re saying this is a character quirk?” No, I’m saying that it’s His character – full stop. His character is intrinsically righteous, and He acts consistently with who He is at all times. Put it this way. Presumably you have ethical standards. Do you wilfully do things that are in absolute opposition to your own character? Think of the most abominable action you can imagine yourself doing – would you ever do it? The difference is that God is altogether perfect, consistent and absolute (unlike us).
You said: “So these standards are something that we should follow?  Is he only ‘following’ his own standards so that we might do likewise?”
That’s the whole point of our creation – to do what’s right in every aspect of our lives. It’s because we break these standards that we’re guilty of sin against God. And He doesn’t follow His standards, His standards (his law) are the creaturely expression of His character. Sort of like the rays follow on as a natural result from the sun, so His standards follow on from who He is.

You said: “Doing wrong has consequences.” Not for god though, obviously.  Perhaps he doesn’t forgive ‘sin’ without qualification, but he does change the qualifications.  If a judge was to do this, we’d have every right to be angry.
But I’ve already told you that He can’t do wrong from the Biblical perspective! It is not a possibility according to Biblical revelation. He is absolute righteousness and in Him is no darkness at all. Tell me, when has He ever changed the qualifications? I would argue that He never changes the qualifications.
 
You said: ““healing someone hardly needs to be justified ”
I agree.  But do I detect some secular ethical reasoning?”
Of course not. I don’t do secular ethics ? - as you know, I think they are inconsistent. I’ve got one source - revelation. What I meant was that justice by its very definition (Biblically), requires a transgression to come into force. Healing is an act of mercy – not directly related to the execution of justice.

You said: “If you believe you’re sinful just for being human, he can attack all as being guilty – newborn and elderly tyrant alike.  But he’s certainly not consistent in his punishment.”
Correct – He would be right in punishing all as guilty. The Bible says as much. As for consistency, the Bible says all who are guilty will go to hell (unless they stand forgiven in Christ). I’d say that universal eternal justice is pretty consistent. But good point, people don’t necessarily get what they deserve in time (Psalm 37 & 73 give some good insight into this).

You said: “This implies there was some sort of precedent for sacrificing himself/his son.”  Precisely! The old testament sacrificial system was the precedent (sacrificing lambs etc. to atone for sin – they ‘foreshadowed Christ’ according to the book of Hebrews). Thus Christ is sometimes called the lamb of God. But you betray ignorance in this comment: “Imagine if the hypothetical judge said, “You are guilty of murder. But you can go free so long as you worship me, I’m off to kill my son for your sins.”
He doesn’t say you can go free so long as you worship me. He says “You are guilty for sinning, your life is forfeit – but I am not willing that any should perish, so I sent my only Son into the world so that whoever should believe on Him will not perish but have life eternal.” (Paraphrased Bible quoting) Death is the price demanded of justice for sin, thus the requirement for Christ to die. Justice ultimately demands restoration of that which is lost – thus the need for life for life. It’s either we die, or we accept His death on our behalf. Restoration and forgiveness is contingent upon faith in God’s appointed means of mercy (Christ). It’s not that difficult to understand is it? It would be similar to you owing a creditor a debt you can’t pay, and someone else offers to pay it for you – only the stakes are much higher.

You said: “Nevertheless, you cannot deny this somewhat strange urge that is universally held by humans of justice.”
I don’t.  But we have good explanations for why this is that don’t require supernaturalism.”
And yet in your worldview, justice remains ever an unfulfilled dream, a mockery of the very concept itself in that it can never be executed and is frequently thwarted. Seems strange that we should so powerfully have this naturalistic desire which is completely unattainable. Justice is a joke from the naturalistic perspective – there’s not even an objective standard whereby justice can be measured.

Steely Dan says:

02:07pm | 28/04/10

@ the apologist

“No, I’m saying that it’s His character – full stop. His character is intrinsically righteous, and He acts consistently with who He is at all times.”
Why is it in anybody’s nature to do a complex act when a simple one would suffice?  This isn’t a question of justice.  Not sending Jesus to die and sending Jesus to die can have exactly the same outcomes.

“Presumably you have ethical standards. Do you wilfully do things that are in absolute opposition to your own character?”
I don’t worry about consistency, I worry about whether my actions are right.  If I discover I’ve been doing the wrong thing, I’d rather change my ways – regardless of what people might think of my ‘consistency’.  As I mentioned above, the ethical implications of ‘saving’ mankind (with qualifications) by sending you/your son to die and simply willing people to be ‘saved’ (with the same qualifications) are identical (unless the act of sacrifice is just a narrative you’ve set up to show people the new deal).

“And He doesn’t follow His standards, His standards (his law) are the creaturely expression of His character. Sort of like the rays follow on as a natural result from the sun, so His standards follow on from who He is.”
So blood sacrifice is or was a major part of his nature?

“Tell me, when has He ever changed the qualifications? I would argue that He never changes the qualifications.”
What do you believe happened when Jesus took on the sins of mankind? If you believe he was paying a debt, then surely the relationship between debtor and ‘debtee’ has changed.

“Of course not. I don’t do secular ethics ? - as you know, I think they are inconsistent. I’ve got one source - revelation.”
We were talking about god healing and killing, not us.  You then said that healing needn’t be justified, but that god only killed those who deserved it. You say this is consistency, not god’s adherence to a rule higher than he is - but isn’t it inconsistent to heal some and not others (even if all are treated consistently in death)?  And later, you say: “Death is the price demanded of justice for sin, thus the requirement for Christ to die”.

“The old testament sacrificial system was the precedent (sacrificing lambs etc. to atone for sin – they ‘foreshadowed Christ’ according to the book of Hebrews).”
There is indeed precedent for sacrifice, but not for super-sacrifice, in the case of Jesus.  Did god simply hide this loophole from his followers, or did he just see it as redundant because he provided lambs for thousands of years, but no sin-less sons of god?  Why did god not provide such a sacrificial son from day one?

“You are guilty for sinning, your life is forfeit – but I am not willing that any should perish, so I sent my only Son into the world so that whoever should believe on Him will not perish but have life eternal. … It would be similar to you owing a creditor a debt you can’t pay, and someone else offers to pay it for you – only the stakes are much higher.”
But this isn’t ‘someone else’, it’s the debtor.  I know you’ll say god isn’t Jesus per se, but 1=1, 2=2 and 3=3, and god cannot be his own son any more than he can exist and not exist simultaneously.  Either way, the debtor sending someone else to die with the express intention that their death would release the debt is incomprehensible.  Why wouldn’t the debtor simply ignore the debt, or say that it doesn’t need to be paid?

“And yet in your worldview, justice remains ever an unfulfilled dream, a mockery of the very concept itself in that it can never be executed and is frequently thwarted.”
Where did you get that idea?  That sounds like what would happen if I was aiming for god-given justice – which I don’t think exists, obviously.

monkeytypist says:

11:14am | 29/04/10

@the apologist

“ethical relativism is the only possibility” - well yes, but again, only in the very strict sense that more than one ethical system *exists*.  It doesn’t oblige any person to *follow* multiple ethical systems.  Someone could perfectly consistently follow Christian ethics, or another set of ethics, entirely without reference to any other set, although personally I would still consider this inadvisable.  The only real problem is if my given ethical system has a position “alternative ethical systems must be eliminated.”

I think we’re in serious danger of getting into circular territory still.  You say: “I want logical and rational argument before I accept the premise of the position, how can I accept the rest without being convinced of the foundation? I assure you, it is no insincerity or mockery on my part in questioning these premises.”  Ok, fine, but where are the logic and rational arguments that support the Christian position? If we apply the same criterion to Christianity that we do to Kant, it’s “quite arrogant” to assume that its positions do in fact represent moral absolutes.  Remembering of course that the existence of supernaturalism cannot be taken as a given without justification, just as with any of Kant’s postulates.  Let’s assume for a moment that the existence of God is an objective fact: this implies that in principle that it could be disproved, even if it isn’t.  If God’s existence can’t be disproved in principle, then it doesn’t hold the existence of objective fact, and thus in terms of positions that are justified we are left with a naturalistic universe and no more (in fact, probably, given Kant’s rationalistations, less) rationalisation for positing Christian positions as objective absolutes.  It is this reliance on supernaturalism that is a key weakness.  If God’s moral laws can’t apply in a naturalistic universe, then the Christian is on dangerous territory unless he or she can objectively prove that God exists.

James1 says:

12:52pm | 29/04/10

Interesting response, apologist.  My question is more this: how do you differentiate between one book which claims to be divinely revealed, and some hairy guy on a street corner proclaiming that God revealed the truth to him personally?  If self-verification is all that is required, what are the standards by which you make a judgment?  My guess is the standards by which you were taught to make a judgment, which in turn calls into question the veracity of the decisions you have made regarding what you believe, as in this situation they are not really your own, but those of tradition.

the apologist says:

07:02pm | 29/04/10

@Steely Dan:
- Part 1 -
You said: “This isn’t a question of justice.  Not sending Jesus to die and sending Jesus to die can have exactly the same outcomes.” You couldn’t be more incorrect on the Biblical position, and should read much more carefully before levelling that criticism at the Biblical position. I don’t see how you can say it’s not a matter of justice. If someone is guilty, God can not bypass justice by simply forgiving them without accounting for their trespass. This is unjust! (according to God’s very own revelation of the nature of justice). 1 Peter 3:18 sums it up like this: “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, to bring us to God”. Not sending Him to die means we are all condemned, sending Him to die makes it possible for us to be forgiven while maintaining justice.
You said: “If I discover I’ve been doing the wrong thing, I’d rather change my ways” So you seek to be consistently ‘right’. That was the point I was making. God, who is all-knowing, perfect and knows what is right without fault, maintains that consistency.
“So blood sacrifice is or was a major part of his nature?” Blood = life. The penalty of sin (the Biblical position is that all have sinned) = death. The execution of this = justice. Sacrifice makes it possible for someone else to bear our guilt. Justice is a part of His nature, and blood sacrifice is consistent with His redemption plan. So you’re comment is close to accurate. I’m sure it’s possible ‘blood sacrifice’ is consistent with your character too, would you die to save someone you loved? Perhaps.
You said: “What do you believe happened when Jesus took on the sins of mankind? If you believe he was paying a debt, then surely the relationship between debtor and ‘debtee’ has changed.” I don’t see how this amounts to a change in the consistency of God.
You said: “- but isn’t it inconsistent to heal some and not others (even if all are treated consistently in death)?” Well at least you’ve conceded the ultimate consistency of God in your comment on death (which is the bottom line in the end). But as for healing some and not others; that’s not unjust. In the context of salvation, justice is judgment for all. Healing/mercy is pure grace. If I own some land – it’s mine. No one has a demand on it. I have the right to give it to someone of my choosing (grace). I have the right not to give it to someone else. The mercy and grace of God is wider in Christ, the door is open for any who will put their faith in Him. No one can get to the end of the line and say ‘Not fair! You didn’t give me grace!’ Every mouth will be silenced before Him. You will be held responsible if you do not put your faith in Christ. Not sure what your point was by saying “And later, you say: “Death is the price demanded of justice for sin, thus the requirement for Christ to die” at the end. Clarify if you wish.
You said: “There is indeed precedent for sacrifice, but not for super-sacrifice…Why did god not provide such a sacrificial son from day one?” Well, the Bible teaches that this wasn’t a ‘loophole’. It actually says that the blood of animals cannot save from sin. They were a foreshadow of Christ in the law of God (Matt 5 v 17-19; & Hebrews again). The Bible teaches that all forgiveness is ultimately based on redemption of Christ – including those who were redeemed before He came to earth. Christ is at the very centre of all God’s plans for His creation (see Ephesians 1 & Colossians 1). Lambs were never sufficient, they were a ‘foreshadow’ of Christ, and yes they did become redundant once that which they looked forward to was finally fulfilled. So, in a sense, He did provide His Son from day one.

the apologist says:

07:04pm | 29/04/10

@Steely Dan
- Part 2 -
You say: “But this isn’t ‘someone else’, it’s the debtor.” I’m not clear what you mean – are you saying Jesus is a debtor just as you or I am? You said: “I know you’ll say god isn’t Jesus per se, but 1=1, 2=2 and 3=3, and god cannot be his own son any more than he can exist and not exist simultaneously.” Nope, I would say Jesus is fully God and fully man. As you say, trinity is a complex concept (to your mind, impossible - apparently). I found the H20 illustration helpful: is water H20? Yes. Is Ice H20? Yes. Is water ice? No. Are they both H20? Yes. The Bible talks of the Father and Jesus as co-eternal persons in the godhead; completely unified in thought and action, but distinct and with different roles. But I’m not going to enter a discourse on the doctrine of the trinity here.
You said: “Either way, the debtor sending someone else to die with the express intention that their death would release the debt is incomprehensible.”  The Father and the Son were agreed in the plan to send Christ to redeem and pay the price of sin from all eternity. Such was the love of God for sinful man “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have life eternal” John 3:16. He layed down His life quite by consent. It’s incomprehensible alright, incomprehensible grace and mercy. Indeed, the Bible says that it is the greatest expression of love there has ever been.
You said: “Why wouldn’t the debtor simply ignore the debt, or say that it doesn’t need to be paid?” I presume you mean creditor – we are the debtors, God is the creditor. This ties in again with our entire previous discussion on justice. For God to ignore the debt would be unjust – just as it would be unjust to let Hitler off for His crimes (extreme example). It’s unthinkable to spit in the face of justice in such a way, and as I have argued, Justice is an intrinsic aspect of God. Forgiveness through Christ was the only way to uphold justice and give mercy and forgiveness in light of the fact of our guilt. I’m sure you would be outraged if every murderer and rapist got to heaven and God said, “don’t worry about it, go in to eternal bliss” (not that such would think an eternity with God is bliss, given that most of them so passionately hated Him in life – but this is another issue…). It would be unthinkable. It would be effectively saying that murder and rape do not matter. And I’m sure you’ll agree that they do, justice matters. Doing the right thing matters.
You said:  ““And yet in your worldview, justice remains ever an unfulfilled dream, a mockery of the very concept itself in that it can never be executed and is frequently thwarted.” Where did you get that idea?” Open your eyes and look at the world around you. Justice as a concept intrinsically makes no exception – murder (for example) must be accounted for. In a naturalistic world, justice I’m sure you agree exists as an ideal, but murderers go free. Rapists fulfil their evil lusts with no accounting. Children are beaten and abused and no one finds out. Stealers get away with robbery frequently. Even in the courts, there’s a fair chance that a skilled lawyer can thwart justice by careful dancing with the rules; for example, a robber can break into a house and then sue when he breaks his leg on a faulty stair. It’s ridiculous. It is a mockery of the concept. You can’t see the difference between the concept of justice and it’s execution in our world? You can’t convincingly deny the argument.
I notice that you ignored my challenge too, what a pity. That’s really where all this talk, and my original criticism might have been truly tested. I presume you think it would be fruitless, but I’m sure if your logic held up I could proven wrong (as you claimed would be the case) – even if I denied it. If you can logically shut me down with sound argument, I’m quite happy to concede defeat. Still not interested in putting your position to the test?

the apologist says:

07:51pm | 29/04/10

@monkeytypist:
so if more than one ethical system exists (and in theory, there could just as easily be as many ethical systems as people; some well considered, some not – no one with any right to say any particular other one is illegitimate) – how can any two be right if they contradict one another? One or both must be deemed illegitimate. Eliminating alternate ethics systems is inevitable if one is correct and one is not. An action can not be both right and wrong at the same time, unless right and wrong are an illusory metaphysical creation we’ve invented and hence don’t properly exist at all (that’d be my view if I was a naturalist).
The crux of my relativistic critique is this – if there are these various systems, what right has anyone got to tell me that what I think is right, is wrong? This is the point I am trying to make when I say it’s all relative in a naturalistic worldview – no one can convincingly convict someone that what they’re doing is wrong (even if it’s theft and murder). If you think you can hypothetically convince me (based upon a naturalistic and materialistic worldview) that murdering someone I didn’t like (for example) was wrong – I would love to see you try. I really would, and I would happily concede defeat if you could pull it off rationally. I don’t believe it’s possible. Unfortunately it seems that Steely Dan has declined my offer, despite claiming it would be no challenge. In a relativistic ethical world (which surely must be the case in a naturalistic worldview) you could argue your personal perspective to me, but it’s simple enough to reply with “that’s not my view, I think what I’m doing is right.”

You said: ““I want logical and rational argument before I accept the premise of the position, how can I accept the rest without being convinced of the foundation? I assure you, it is no insincerity or mockery on my part in questioning these premises.”  Ok, fine, but where are the logic and rational arguments that support the Christian position?” 
I fully recognize the argument you are raising, and I’m not avoiding it or discounting it’s legitimacy without actually arguing against it – I’m more than willing to open that can of worms. But if you’ll allow me to put it on hold for the moment, can I please ask you to justify the foundations of the alternate ethical perspective(s) as I challenged? You deflected my point completely by criticizing my position (which as I said, I have no problem with, just one thing at a time though!), and neglected to defend Kant (as an e.g.) in the way I challenged. I don’t know what ethical system you subscribe to (presumably none absolutely), but for arguments sake, we’ll stick with Kant. Kant starts with the categorical imperative (within a purely naturalistic universal framework). Do you think you can convince me logically why I should adopt Kant’s starting point – and thereby convincingly convict me that certain things are wrong based upon that position?
As an interesting aside, would not proving the Kantian position consequently disprove the Utilitarian analysis? I mean – Kant asserts objective morals. Mill proposed that no objective standards exist a priori. These are opposite positions. If Kant is indeed correct, how then can Mill also be correct? Don’t worry about answering if you don’t want to.

the apologist says:

07:59pm | 29/04/10

@James:
Thanks James. Believe me, I jumped my own hurdles to make the Christian faith my own – and quite the process it was. As you say, to base them on tradition or by default is a position already defeated.
As for the difference between the possibility of separate divine revelations? i.e. the man on the street corner, and the Bible. Well, actually looking at what they say is a good place to start. I don’t think you’ve chosen a great example, a random hairy guy on the street is not even in the same league as the Bible (without further qualification than what you’ve given anyway). The Bible presents a consistent world and life view, a consistent (if you’ll care to study) representation of God. Some have called it the anvil that breaks all the hammers (many have tried over the centuries to break it). It presents an incredibly complex and unified view of history, creation, theology, anthropology, etc. If you think that’s not the case, I’m happy to hear the challenges and defend against them. But further, the Bible is a living word in my experience, it is unlike any other I have ever read – it’s like it reads me (the Bible gives a similar testimony of itself as well). I have also experienced many amazing mercies and provisions from God in my life which have strengthened my convictions. You probably wouldn’t believe it, but I know I’ve got good reason to believe that God does miracles.
But when it all comes down, I can test it rationally and scientifically in every way I want (and such studies I have been satisfied with – and I continue to do such as I am able), but I accept it by faith at the bottom of it all. Can I describe that to you? Can a man who sees describe colour to one blind from birth? But the Bible says “Without faith it’s impossible to please God”. At the bottom of it all, I don’t subject Him to my petty scrutiny and arrive at belief on my own terms, I come before His throne and speechless fall to my knees before the Almighty God and accept HIs revelation in the man Jesus Christ.
As for other revelation – there are plenty around. I’ve looked at the muslim faith and the Bahai faith in more detail than the others, but careful scrutiny has revealed inconsistency within them to me. I reject the Koran as revelation, and I could give good reason why I do so. With your hairy man example, I would certainly listen to His words – but I really can’t pass judgment upon such without assessing His ‘revelation’ in completeness.
Intellectual suicide you say? Circular reasoning perhaps? Well, I could at least understand why you would make such remarks. As an aside, I think you’d find all reasoning to be circular at base, most just don’t realise it - everyone puts their faith in something they cannot account for via sight and sense. In that sense I would challenge you to give me a reasonable account for the existence of reason (presumably you appeal to reason - as exercised in accordance with your senses - as your ultimate authority).
For my part, I cannot but accept what the Lord God has spoken into my life - and I tell you now, there is nothing in all of existence that compares to walking with God - indeed, it is walking with God that gives existence significance and meaning.

Steely Dan says:

10:42am | 30/04/10

@the apologist

“I don’t see how you can say it’s not a matter of justice. If someone is guilty, God can not bypass justice by simply forgiving them without accounting for their trespass.”
But why invent the Jesus solution to the exclusion of any other, easier-to-explain solutions?  God cannot be a slave to process, even if he wants to be consistent in his judgement.  Think about this – in our judicial system we hold (most of the time) to the value that the ends do not justify the means.  We do this for consistency, even if in a small number of cases the outcome seems unjust.  The man who runs a red light in busy traffic but doesn’t hit anybody receives the same fine as the man who runs a red light at 3am in a town with one car.  Discretionary power of police and judges is limited to avoid inconsistency and corruption.  God’s ends justify the means.

“I’m sure it’s possible ‘blood sacrifice’ is consistent with your character too, would you die to save someone you loved?”
I would, but that’s not a validation of blood sacrifice.  I’d jump in front of a train to push a loved one out of the way – if one person will die in that situation, I’d make that person me.  But I would not declare that someone needs to be killed then offer myself (or a third party) to be killed instead.  That’s consistent with my nature.

“I don’t see how this amounts to a change in the consistency of God.”
God sent Jesus to earth in the year 1, AD/CE.  Jesus was killed around 33AD/CE, and at that point in time Jesus took on the sins of mankind.  Why 33?  Why not 4,200BC?  How much livestock was killed needlessly?  Why not have Eve give birth to Jesus? 

“But as for healing some and not others; that’s not unjust. In the context of salvation, justice is judgment for all. Healing/mercy is pure grace.”
What is god’s criterion for ‘gracing’ some with healing/mercy?  If we don’t see that there is one, is this consistency?  Is he only consistent in penalty?

“Well, the Bible teaches that this wasn’t a ‘loophole’. It actually says that the blood of animals cannot save from sin.
Which passages?  Are they written after Jesus’ death and resurrection?  I’m trying to see how this is consistent.

“I’m not clear what you mean – are you saying Jesus is a debtor just as you or I am?”
Well, you’ll say Jesus is god, and vice versa, which confuses the issue.  I actually meant to say that Jesus is the creditor (because he’s god).

“I found the H20 illustration helpful”
Have you ever seen a molecule of H2O in all three states at once?

“He layed down His life quite by consent. It’s incomprehensible alright, incomprehensible grace and mercy. Indeed, the Bible says that it is the greatest expression of love there has ever been.”
Plenty of people have sacrificed themselves for just one other person, so I’d say one man sacrificing himself for many is actually less impressive, though I’d still say it was a noble act of love.  But the problem I’m talking about is the fact that Jesus (as the one who pays the debt) is the same entity that the debt is ‘owed’ to.

“I presume you mean creditor – we are the debtors, God is the creditor.”
Yes, sorry about that. I always switch them in my head for some reason.  I’ve addressed your points from this bit earlier in this comment.

“In a naturalistic world, justice I’m sure you agree exists as an ideal, but murderers go free.”
So you’re saying that ‘life isn’t fair’?  Yes, that’s clearly correct.  We may never have a completely just world, but we can try.  Hence we apply justice whenever we can.  I know a lot of theists find the concept of an unjust world as too unsettling a concept to accept, but I have good reason to say that’s what we live in.

“I notice that you ignored my challenge too, what a pity.”
I can see a challenge directed at monkeytypist, did you want me to address that?

the apologist says:

12:24pm | 03/05/10

@Steely Dan:
-Part 2-
You said: ““Well, the Bible teaches that this wasn’t a ‘loophole’. It actually says that the blood of animals cannot save from sin. Which passages?  Are they written after Jesus’ death and resurrection?  I’m trying to see how this is consistent.” Hebrews 9 & 10 particularly discuss the relation between the sacrifice of Jesus and the sacrifices of the Old Covenant; but I’m sure a careful reading of the entire book of Hebrews (in the New Testament) would give a lot of understanding if that’s what you’re searching for. There’s a few references to the relation between the Old and New covenants in Galatians as well. But if I was going to try and summarise the consistency that you’re looking for, I’d put it like this (and you’ve got to look broadly before narrowing in): God created man to live in relationship with Him, to do what was morally right in all spheres of life. We broke the standard of ‘right’, and are suffering the consequences. God re-established relationship with mankind through the line of Abraham – outlining His law through Moses, which re-iterated righteousness and relationship for us as described in the law of Moses (sacrifice for forgiveness Hebrews 9v22). All of the law was looking forward to the coming Messiah, Jesus, who established righteousness for us once and for all (which the law could not do in itself – see Hebrews). It’s all centred on Christ, and re-establishment of relationship with God through Him. Anyway, we’re taking leaps and bounds across what has made tomes and volumes of books throughout Church history, and spans across doctrines and doctrines of Christian theology. My advice? Start reading the Bible to see if these things are so. I’m not sure how valuable further discussion on a forum like this can really be.
You said: “Have you ever seen a molecule of H2O in all three states at once?” I said helpful, not comprehensive.
You said: “But the problem I’m talking about is the fact that Jesus (as the one who pays the debt) is the same entity that the debt is ‘owed’ to.” Why is that a problem? Is it a problem when a dad pays for His son’s mistake when His son totals someone’s car?
You said: “So you’re saying that ‘life isn’t fair’?  Yes, that’s clearly correct.” Then we agree, justice is an unrealised and possibly insane ideal in a naturalistic world (in that it demands complete justice by definition and cannot deliver).  “I know a lot of theists find the concept of an unjust world as too unsettling a concept to accept, but I have good reason to say that’s what we live in.” yeah we do. The world is unjust, but justice is ultimate and will be realised. To me that’s a one up on my worldview to yours in that justice is possible (I would argue that the concept of justice is absolute – in that it makes no concessions as an idea). From a naturalist perspective, I’d argue that – given relative ethics – the very concept and possibility of justice is ridiculous. Who’s standard are you using? What right do they have to enforce that standard by executing justice? Justice is reduced to the tyranny of the majority – whoever has the might to make their opinion right determines justice. You don’t find that unsatisfactory?
You said: “I can see a challenge directed at monkeytypist, did you want me to address that?” No. To get back to the very original criticism I made, I want you to attempt to logically convince me that murder (as a blatantly obvious example – but choose another if you wish) is morally wrong based upon your naturalistic worldview. I would contest you can’t do it because ethics in a naturalistic worldview are inevitably relative; in truth, there could be no such thing as ethics apart from our own opinions – and thereby, ‘wrong’ or ‘right’ wouldn’t properly exist.
I find it interesting that you’ve got so many questions. No idea what your motive is, but I’m happy to keep discussing. Perhaps you’re using questions to disprove the validity of my view in much the same way I am?

Steely Dan says:

12:53pm | 04/05/10

“Hebrews 9 & 10 particularly discuss the relation between the sacrifice of Jesus and the sacrifices of the Old Covenant… There’s a few references to the relation between the Old and New covenants in Galatians as well.”
These passages are all consistent with your explanation – but they’re also consistent with an ad hoc rationalisation for the death of somebody promoted as a Messiah as well.  Is there nothing written before Jesus’ death that indicates that there was precedent for one atoning for the sins of many?

(Re: H2O)  “I said helpful, not comprehensive.”
Sure, but doesn’t the problem with the H2O example show something? One cannot be three mutually exclusive things at the same time.

“Is it a problem when a dad pays for His son’s mistake when His son totals someone’s car?”
But in this instance the “someone” who owns the car is the dad himself.  Say person X owes me $100, and for whatever reason they can’t pay me back.  I don’t want person X to be in debt to me.  To solve this issue, I have a son, who I give $100, and instruct him to use that $100 to pay the debt of person X.  My son does as I ask, and he gives me $100.  Later, down the pub, when I tell you this story, wouldn’t your first reaction be to say: “Why didn’t you just forgive the debt?”

“Then we agree, justice is an unrealised and possibly insane ideal in a naturalistic world (in that it demands complete justice by definition and cannot deliver).”
Adding ‘complete’ and ‘absolute’ to the definition of justice is your own doing.  I still believe it is a good and righteous act to seek all the justice I can, even when I know that I can never eliminate all injustice.  How does that make the pursuit of justice, happiness or knowledge ‘ridiculous’ simply because I’m well aware that I will never attain absolute justice, absolute happiness or absolute knowledge?

“The world is unjust, but justice is ultimate and will be realised. To me that’s a one up on my worldview to yours in that justice is possible.”
I don’t see having extra hopefulness as a “one up”.  Does that mean the lunatic who believes there is no such thing as injustice is “one up” on you? 

“Who’s standard are you using?”
My own, obviously.  This doesn’t mean I claim that my standard is somehow absolutely informed and correct.

“Justice is reduced to the tyranny of the majority – whoever has the might to make their opinion right determines justice. You don’t find that unsatisfactory?”
I find that comment ironic given you openly advocate the tyranny of one.  This is why we have the concepts of basic human rights, and restrictions on what we can legislate on and enforce.  I know that the majority is not always right, but I’ll take an imperfect democracy over any alternative that has ever been suggested.

“To get back to the very original criticism I made, I want you to attempt to logically convince me that murder (as a blatantly obvious example – but choose another if you wish) is morally wrong based upon your naturalistic worldview.”
You never made the challenge to me (that I can see – correct me if I’m wrong).  But I think you know that I can’t convince you of that.  I know that you cannot accept secular ethics, because you presuppose the existence of an omnipotent person who dictates right and wrong.  You want me to give you an absolute right and wrong – which only exist in a theistic worldview.  I can only demonstrate that some outcomes are clearly better than others.  I’m sure you recognise that a world where murder is legislated against clearly benefits you, your family and your society, but I know that you say that it’s ‘relative’, and that there is “no such thing as ethics apart from our own opinions”.  I’m fine with saying that – but some opinions are better than others.  The primary schooler’s opinions on the existence of dark matter are not equal to the opinions of the astrophysicist’s.  We can say very confidently that the quality of the astrophysicist’s opinions on the matter is superior because of the quality of the arguments that they can present for their assertions.  It’s naïve to think that ethicists, philosophers, criminologists, psychologists, sociologists and political philosophers simply sit around plucking theories out of the air in some arbitrary expression of whimsy.  I’m well aware that ethics is not as black and white as the physical sciences, but this does not excuse anybody from declaring ethics to be ‘too hard’ to think about. 

“No idea what your motive is, but I’m happy to keep discussing. Perhaps you’re using questions to disprove the validity of my view in much the same way I am?”
Sure. Every view should be subjected to scrutiny, mine and yours included.

monkeytypist says:

03:11pm | 04/05/10

Apologist:

Honestly, this is all getting a bit difficult for me to follow.  I know that I’m not addressing specific points and I apologise for that but the lack of proper “threading” here is making it tough for me to cover everything.

You’ve asked about my own position: honestly, I don’t consider myself an expert moral philosopher, and the reason I am wary of committing myself is because I am trying to emphasise the internal cohesion of any given (non-Christian) system, and the more examples I use the more I am likely to provide “inconsistencies” that are based on my flawed understanding rather han the theory itself.

(Potential counter-argument: “are you just tearing down other systems without having anything to put in their place?” Let’s assume that I am, although I wouldn’t agree with that because I have alluded to other belief systems that other people follow.  Their validity *as* belief systems is not under discussion here; we are talking specifically about the validity of *Christianity*.  But let’s assume that I am.  If Christianity is put forward as not just the best, but the only truly satisfying ethical system anyone can follow, that monumentally increases the burden to prove itself.  Going back to my stock example, Kant went to a great effort to prove the utility of his own universalist system.  Christian ethics explicitly relies on a contention that such proof is not necessary, albeit it might be desireable.  If something is put forward as the *only* possible system, then if it’s demonstrably flawed/unjustifiable that increases, not decreases, the importance of disregarding it, even if the price is a multitude of alternative systems.)

Let’s stick to the basis.  I will for the sake of argument withdraw my earlier contention that I could dissuade you from murder using a belief system other than Christianity.  If that is true, and the only thing that honestly, at bottom makes you not a vicious murderer, is not any sort of psychosocial conditioning other than a belief in God, how is that better than, say, getting one’s morality from a sock-puppet?  We could at least easily demonstrate that this puppet exists.

When a moral/ethical contention comes from nowhere without self-evident justification, we must go to greater mental effort to uphold it.  Unfortunately, on the basis of the well-understood phenomenon of cognitive dissonance, we treat a more obscure moral principle (e.g. “don’t eat shellfish”) as *especially* valuable, when in fact it’s objectively not.  We don’t want to waste all the mental effort we’ve put into believing it/understanding it.  Thus we have the presupposition that something that is beyond conventionally accessible human moral reason is ipso facto better, when in actual probability it is likely to be worse.

To summarise: A belief system that is “untouchable” (i.e. supernatural/counter-intuitive) in origin is weaker, in terms of getting someone to understand it, than one that is not.  To the extent that Kant’s reasoning is inaccessible to the average person, that makes his moral theory a bad theory.  To the extent that Christianity relies on premises that aren’t justifiable by reference to readily available and appreciable human norms, it’s a weak moral compass.

Tone says:

10:45am | 23/04/10

while Jensen runs around the world challenging the authority that gave him   authoritarian shoes He has decided He has outgrown

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=12388

and http://www.gafcon.org/news/fca_all_the_more_urgent_after_episcopal_election/

Tone says:

11:50am | 23/04/10

The Anglican Diocese of Sydney represents just 1.5 to 3% of the region it covers:

http://www.smh.com.au/business/back-in-black-as-prayers-answered-20100415-shq8.html

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/anglicans-warn-of-lonely-heart-at-the-centre-of-glittering-city-20100331-reww.html

It -and its representatives - claims to special status are just special pleading.

Peter says:

11:54am | 23/04/10

Why wouldn’t they be? Even football clubs are concerned if they lose members. I don’t think football clubs are about power.

Ras Putin says:

12:22pm | 23/04/10

The sooner the better Duncan!!!  According to the joker who calls himself an archbishop,the vast majority of people on this planet must have no morals..Personaly i completely dissagree with him..

Steely Dan says:

12:29pm | 23/04/10

“Produce the God or shut up.”
Amen. ‘Habeas deus’?

monkeytypist says:

12:38pm | 23/04/10

“God was doing us a favour”.  The problem is that God can do whatever he wants. And he also knows everything.  That means that anything that happens everywhere happens with his tacit approval.  If something doesn’t make God happy, it doesn’t happen.  So surely, surely, he could have come up with a better situation to fix up the debt we owe him than to say “okay, I’ll let you torture me and kill me”?  If he was a person, he might just say “don’t worry about it!”  Particularly if he was infinitely generous, which I take it that he is.

Steely Dan says:

12:46pm | 23/04/10

@ Amy
“Please read your Bible. “
You can try, but you’ll find information on substitutionary atonement lacking to say the least. And the justification for the whole act is bizarre. For the sin of being human, the god that made us humans (and made being human a sin) sent his son (which was himself) to be sacrificed to himself (himself himself, not his son himself) because of a rule he had invented?

“but the Bible should be the focus”
The Bible permits slavery. Do you really want the Bible to be the focus?

Ellie says:

03:28pm | 23/04/10

Love your comment. Thanks for providing me with a laugh this boring afternoon at work

John says:

04:24pm | 23/04/10

Spot on! How can the Bible be fit to teach to children? Or the New Testament or the Quran for that matter. They are full of support for violence, genocide, murder, rape, slavery, and misogyny to name a few. If some Human rights lawyer had some balls he would take it to the Supreme Court and have them all banned.

Horizons says:

11:23am | 25/04/10

A good read thank you, sure gave me a laugh reading that and its so accurate Even the Adam and Eve story is mind bogling!! They had 2 sons , so where did everyone else come from?  And!! I think Mary was having it on the side and told that silly Joseph she was impregnated by God so he would still marry her.

A Bob says:

03:58pm | 23/04/10

My mother was an atheist but I was sent to religous instruction classes when I was little so that “you can learn what it’s about and make up your own mind”.

In one lesson about heaven a little girl told the teacher that her dog had died but she was over it now as her mum said he was waiting in heaven for her. The replied that dogs don’t go to heaven as they don’t have souls. The little girl burst into inconsolable tears. I was disgusted.

The end of the lesson was spent drawing pictures of what we thought heaven looked like. I drew lots of clouds and filled them with winged pigs. The teacher looked at it and told me “They don’t have pigs in heaven”.

“They do in my heaven!” was my defiant reply. I must have been a wonderful student.

Craigles says:

01:32pm | 26/04/10

The foundations of Christianity are false propositions - the gospels are based on fiction selected on the basis of their alignment to OT prophecies, and adapted over a few centuries to give them creedability (i.e. creed-ability).  Hence, the premiss “Christianity works on a good basis” is false.

Morals have along history of development -

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/mccabe02.htm

Ally says:

05:14pm | 26/04/10

Why teach Christianity instead of Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, Judaism, Bahai… the list goes on? Why teach any religion at all in our public schools? Leave that to the private religious schools… it’s what they are there for. The pilot in NSW is for a secular ethics class… nothing at all to do with any religion… and nor should it be! Comparative religious studies are part of the history curriculum in state high schools.

monkeytypist says:

02:34pm | 04/05/10

Michael,

It may or may not surprise you to learn that there are people like me who would dispute that (a) religious principles are the basis of what is right, (b) Christianity (or any religion) is a basically helpful and good thing.

Happy to explain at length if you wish