Ahaha 
My last reply was probably harsher-sounding than warranted towards you, @Vinnie - my ire wasn’t so much directed at you as at those who claim to represent objective morality here in the U.S. at the moment. So you rightly have repeated, and could repeat here - “by what standard am I able to issue all this condemnation?” And all the self-appointed guardians of “world-view” these days are quick to pick up on this and wield it (with some pedigree - to be sure - echoes of what C.S. Lewis himself pushed and others before him too). And yes, while all this falls short of being some sort of “moral proof” that some want it to be, there is still, I think, an essential ‘sting’ here that philosophically prevents non-believers from being able to acknowledge any such deity-level objectivity.
But the catch then that’s filling my sails with wind right now is that those who have put themselves forward as guardians of such objective morality are themselves busy demonstrating how insufficient - no - even anti-sufficient! - it can be! While I’m still (obviously) leaning on some ostensibly objective standard to even make such a statement (thereby in a way, still demonstrating your defended point), I’m also calling foul on their claim that it is only and ever “evil secularism” that takes a culture to bad places. The U.S. right now (and so many other cultures and nations before too - all the way back to Constantine) are a demonstration of just how evil people can get, especially with all these objective moral tools in place! It doesn’t refute your argument, Vinney - I know. I’m not really trying to philosophize here. I’m only pointing out that by our own claimed standards of objective morality, our historical score card isn’t looking very convincing; especially with what current U.S. evangelical culture is even more openly revealing itself to be. Those who can only rustle up ‘subjectivity’ as their highest philosophical basis, are putting the objectivity crew to shame. And that testimony (and anti-testimony) does not go un-noticed.
1 Like
3x = 9 If a students tells me you have to multiply both sides by 3 and x = 27 they are wrong. Even if 20 students get together and tell me this they are all wrong. If they formed a club that taught this they would be wrong. If they showed me holy revelation from god teaching this or told me the lord gave them special knowledge they would be wrong. But here is the relevant part. Bad mathematics doesn’t eliminate good mathematics. Bad science doesn’t eliminate good science. Bad morality does not eliminate good morality. Morality is objective given our nature. That people behave in an immoral fashion does not change that. In fact, it presupposes it. You cannot behave immorally if moral behavior is not a real part of the world.
I’ll give you two very different answers.
[1] I would say say the atheists are closer to Christ’s teachings than those who go about shouting Christ’s name with their lips. What else am I to say? We may have different approaches to Christianity. It is not the well who need a doctor.
[2] Absolutely nothing or whatever you want if morality is made up. Even Christ’s teachings hold no more authority than anyone elses. Without an objective standard, no one’s position is any more right than anyone elses, God or not. There is no such thing as moral progress either. You can’t progress towards something without an objective standard telling you what progress really looks like.
Anyone is free to make up any position they want if morality is just subjective opinion. They can hold to their views with or without doubts. What I would say is that atheists and theists can both engage in ethics just the same as they can engage in science. As Feser writes
“Ultimately” is the key word here. It is because secondary causes are real that natural science is possible. When we study the physical world, we are studying how physical things themselves behave given their nature, not the capricious acts of God. And it is because immanent teleology is real that natural law is possible. When we study ethics, we are studying what is good for human beings given their nature, not capricious divine commands. Ultimately the facts studied by science and the facts studied by ethics depend on God, because everything depends, at every instant, on God. In that sense, science, ethics, and everything else depend on God. But proximatelyethics can be done at least to a large extent without reference to God, just as natural science can. In that sense, many moral truths would still be true even if, per impossibile, there were no God – just as the periodic table of the elements would be what it is even if, per impossibile, there were no God. (All of this is discussed in chapter 5 of Aquinas. And see the first half of this article for a sketch of A-T natural law theory.)
If you didn’t know, this is the answer to Euhtyrphros dilemma as well. This is why the link T posted really wants to say not all subjective moral truths are the same. Deep down it knows there is an actual objective morality.
Vinnie
4 Likes
Exactly. So maybe Christians today should stop trying to claim that 2+2 = 5 on the moral front! The watching world notices. Just sayin.
1 Like
You know, if all this was actually true, I bet God would feel the need to become human and try to show us how to live.
“You suck but I love you anyway.” Isn’t that pretty much the truth of things?
4 Likes
- We often talk past one another because we project categories, motives, or intellectual habits onto people who don’t actually hold them. The YouTube conversation Stereotypes Prove the Resurrection??!? (feat. Amy-Jill Levine) (William Lane Craig response) [edited transcript] struck me as unusually constructive—not because the participants agreed, but because they corrected stereotypes in real time without hostility.
- In it, Amy-Jill Levine (a Jewish New Testament scholar) and Paul Ens / Paulogia (an ex-Christian skeptic) jointly critique broad claims about “Jewish thought” attributed to William Lane Craig, while remaining mutually respectful and precise.
- I found this discussion to be a useful counterexample to how disagreements often unfold: a Jewish scholar and an ex-Christian skeptic working together to correct overgeneralizations without collapsing into caricature. Regardless of where one lands on the resurrection question, the method of engagement—accuracy about the other, and clarity about what is rejected for lack of evidence versus what is ruled out “in principle”—seems worth reflecting on. What would it look like for discussions here to adopt that kind of discipline more consistently?
2 Likes
- One aspect I found especially instructive is that although neither participant affirms the Resurrection, they differ in orientation: Levine explicitly brackets the question as outside her scholarly interests, while Ens actively critiques it—but he does not press her to share that interest, modeling a form of disagreement that respects intellectual boundaries.
1 Like
If You haven’t been a witness to what others have like Moses, then not seeing is why there is No Belief. Seeing is Believing, as it is recorded of St. Thomas seeing and not Doubting. Until an Atheist sees Themselves, they probably will never believe.
Some people wouldn’t believe even if they saw it with their own eyes. It’s straight out of the Bible (Luke 16:31)—if they have a dogmatic mindset, they’ll rationalize and dismiss absolutely anything that happens.
Of course, this isn’t the case for all atheists—but dogmatic or axiomatic naturalism is far more common than we tend to think. This is why I object when people claim that atheism is not a form of faith. For some, atheism stems from a genuine lack of evidence or experience. But for others, it functions very much like a faith (and a fundamentalist one at that)—something they would cling to even if they travelled back in time and saw the risen Jesus with their own eyes, complete with the peculiar characteristics of His glorified body.
After all, like i said in another post, who’s to say He wasn’t simply a member of a more advanced, human-like species from another galaxy, using technology we can’t even comprehend? If you’re determined to dismiss something, you can rationalize away anything.
Dogmatic naturalists—and let me stress that I’m referring specifically to them, not to all naturalists and atheists—are far closer to young earth creationists than they would like to admit. Though they sit at opposite ends of the ideological spectrum, their dogmatic mindset and their stubborn dismissal or hand-waving of any contrary evidence are strikingly similar.
I have to admit, though, at least young earth creationists are dogmatic and stubborn in their refusal to consider contrary evidence out of a sincere love for God. Ironically, they don’t realize that by defending an untenable and irrational version of the Faith, they may actually be undermining their own mission—to bring more people into the heavenly kingdom. On the other hand, dogmatic naturalists are unwavering believers in… nothing. In annihilation. And in the absolute lack of any inherent meaning in the universe and in our lives. That strikes me as even less rational. I don’t like any form of ‘bury-your-head-in-the-sand’ dogmatism, but if someone has to be a dogmatic unwavering taliban about something it’s far more rational to choose to be so about something that gives life meaning—rather than something that strips it away. So, when I really think about it, dogmatic naturalists seem even more irrational than young earth creationists.
2 Likes
If you have access to some ‘objective morality’, then you should be able to quickly and easily tell everyone what that objective morality says about:
- Genetic modification of human gametes
- The death penalty
- Limits on family size
- Polygamy and plural marriages (both polygyny and polyandry)
- The trolley dilemma
Preferably by quoting the supposed objective morality so that it’s obvious that you aren’t just giving your own or some-one else’s opinion.
It would also be helpful if you could demonstrate that you are accessing the definitive objective morality, rather than making a subjective choice of one of many possible ‘objective’ moralities.
Added:
If? You claim to have access to an objective morality. You should know whether or not slavery is objectively morally wrong, and be able to cite what your objective moral standard actually says rather than simply asserting that slavery is wrong, which could just be your opinion. You can do the same for rape while you’re about it.
P.S. When I previously asked you what your claimed objective moral standard said about slavery, you didn’t answer. I doubt you will answer this time either. Your failure to do so would be a clear demonstration that you do not have access to an objective moral standard, because if you did actually have that access then answering would be trivial.
He actually wrote
So, the ‘if’ in that context was not intended to question the objective moral evil of slavery or to imply that its wrongness is debatable.
Misquoting someone does you no favors.
3 Likes
I didn’t misquote him.
His opinion about slavery being wrong is not an objective moral standard
I’m asking him to quote what the objective morality he claims to have access to says about slavery.
But I’ve extended the quote anyway.
1 Like
This is a thoughtful post, but I believe it’s important to acknowledge that some people simply do not engage in good faith.
Let me preface by saying that I am currently completely agnostic regarding the Medjugorje phenomenon. I do not know whether it is a genuine spiritual event or not. However, one thing that allegedly stood out to me was a message attributed to Mary: among the ten secrets to be revealed, the third is said to be a permanent, supernatural, and indestructible sign that will appear on the mountain of the apparitions. According to the message, this sign is intended to lead atheists and non-Christians to conversion. And yet, we are told that while many will convert, many others—particularly among atheists—will become even more entrenched in their disbelief.
As I mentioned, I am not claiming certainty about the legitimacy of Medjugorje; I remain completely agnostic. Only time will tell. If it is true, it must unfold within our lifetimes—after all, the seers are all over 60, and one of the priests who is said to play a role in the events is nearly 80. So, whether it is authentic or a hoax will become evident sooner rather than later.
But I am absolutely certain of one thing: if it is true, there will indeed be those who will harden themselves even more in unbelief—and I would have believed that even without Mary’s alleged message saying that there will be people who will further harden themselves.
This, in essence, is the mystery of iniquity—mysterium iniquitatis. Some people reject God not merely because they lack experience or evidence, but out of pride.
It is the same sin that Satan and the angels who followed him committed—only in their case was even more grave, since the angels had absolute certainty of God’s existence. Pride lies at the heart of this rebellion, which is, not coincidentally, the gravest of the seven deadly sins.
I have encountered such people. They frequently employ sardonic sarcasm—one of the hallmarks (or perhaps i should have said hellmarks) of the Enlightenment—and seem almost naturally, or rather willfully, blind to anything pertaining to God or the spiritual realm.
It is truly a mystery. Even when I was essentially an atheist—when I believed that God had as much chance of being real as the tooth fairy—I still recognized how awesome it would be if He were real, and if His promises were true. But there are some who actively don’t want that to be true. To me, that mindset seems fundamentally incompatible with genuine love. After all, how can one truly love someone while also hoping they simply turn into worm food after death? It’s inconceivable. You might love someone despite believing they will cease to exist after death—perhaps even more so, since the awareness of limited time might make you want to make the most of it—but to wish for the permanent death of someone you love is irredeemably irreconcilable with the very nature of love itself. These individuals would deny any evidence, no matter how compelling.
We should remember Satan’s motto: “Non serviam”—“I will not serve.” Some people are so consumed by pride that they would rather see themselves as meaningless bags of flesh, doomed to die in a purposeless universe, than acknowledge themselves as children of God—dependent on Him, grateful to Him, and worshipping Him.
These individuals embody the very opposite of what Jesus taught when He said we must become like children to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. They are hyper-skeptical, cynical, and willfully closed off to God’s grace.
These are the same people the Bible refers to when it says: “The fool hath said in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1). Note—it says in his heart, not in his head.
We must be clear-eyed about this reality. Such people do exist, and we should not be naïve in thinking that every non-believer would come to faith if only they were presented with evidence or personal experience.
2 Likes
Bingo. I go even further. I see it as walking into someone’s home then taking a dump on the floor. We have to know where we are. Certain things are appropriate in certain places and not others. I wouldn’t expect a preacher in a Church to say “well maybe if our God exists then maybe we might be sinners and maybe Jesus was God and then maybe we could repent and call Him Lord.” That is not a very good sermon. Neither would I adopt a neutral posture on a forum that seeks to bridge the gap (or show it doesn’t exist at all) between God’s word and God’s world.
You don’t have to go any further than the gospels as a Christian to know this. People rejected God in the flesh. My sheep hear my voice.
Yes, it was using the fact that chattel slavery is immoral to demonstrate that made-up subjective systems of morality are nonsense. Roy’s constant misunderstanding is what ultimately led to me private messaging him and this thread. There is a communication barrier.
That does not follow. The more specific and nuanced moral questions get, the more difficult it becomes to be certain. Nowhere does my comment say every moral view or every issue unders the sun is as demonstrable as any other, that all my views are certain objective truths, or that every moral statement in the Bible is objectively true.
But take the death penalty. For me the arguments on both sides generally agree on the inherent worth of a human. It a question of when, if ever, it is acceptable to take a human life capitally given the unique, intrinsic value and inalienable rights human beings possess. There is an objective understanding of human value driving this debate on both sides. “I enjoy watching random people being given lethal injections” is not a serious argument in favor of the death penalty. Even though morality is objective and certain principles are easier to discover than others, this does not necessitate there will not be gray areas or disagreements by well meaning people on what is proper. Having access to objective morality does not mean we always get it right, that some aspects of morality are not tied into our cultures and so on. As usual, you resort immediately to the wooden fundamentalist version of everything.
This is why I messaged you in the first place. I don’t know how to communicate effectively with a piece of cardboard. Nor do I have any real desire to communicate with an atheist on a Christian forum that contributes nothing but constantly nitpicks at things. Morality is an objective part of reality. We still have to figure lots of things out and it is easy to go wrong. None of us is immune to our environment or cultural upbringing. When people talk about morality being subjective they are glimpsing some aspect of truth or the reality of the world. People disagree. Some people are in fact immoral as well. But in the end, denying objective morality renders all five of your examples meaningless. Made up answers are made up answers no matter how important someone imagines them to be.
You seem to mistakenly think saying “morality is an objective part of the world” means I am saying “all my religious views on morality are objectively correct and can be easily demonstrated.”
Vinnie
3 Likes
It’s not a lack of compassion that’s the issue, it’s a lack of understanding.
I have no expectation that any of the Xtians here will want to even consider becoming atheists. But if y’all want to talk about the atheist position, you could at least find out what it actually is before commenting on it.
1 Like
Sure, and there are many variations on this. Some cannot believe and cannot bring themselves to embrace a God who would eternally torment some of God’s own creations. Conversely, some only embrace God because they believe God will treat their enemies that way; take away an eternal hell of suffering for others, and they would reject God. There are people consumed by pride or consumed by hate, but none of this fairly characterizes the average atheist or Christian.
Likewise, not every believer would keep the faith if they were presented with evidence – even by Jesus after death – that things were just a bit different than they thought. Just as it was the highly religious that had the hardest time with how Jesus claimed to fulfill their messianic expectations, I think it’s common to be devoted to one’s own system more than to the God who loves us.
My view is highly influenced by Matthew’s gospel. In it, Jesus repeatedly states that the final judgement will be full of surprises. Many who seemed to be faithful to God will, in the end, be rejected. Many who seemed to be outside the kingdom will, in the end, be welcomed in. As someone raised Christian, Matthew’s judgement texts make me extremely uncomfortable, not only because the criterion tends to be obedient actions more than holding the right beliefs, but also in how we’re all mixtures of sheep and goat. Matthew’s lack of clarity in how that gradient polarizes to a binary really works against feeling assured of salvation. It’s almost as if he was trying to unsettle the comfortable.
1 Like
But that is not God’s doing. The gates of Hell are closed from the inside. People condemn themselves to Hell by freely rejecting God—it is not God who imposes torment upon them.
This is why we must not pray for the conversion of Satan, Astaroth, Bael, Azazel, Asmodeus—in short, the fallen angels—because they have freely chosen their path. Just like the humans who ended up there (though I hope they are very few).
That could be the initial stage of conversion for some people. But I don’t believe it’s compatible with someone who truly has a relationship with God and understands the depth of His love for humanity. It aligns more with someone at the very beginning of their spiritual journey. Let’s not forget that “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" (Proverbs 9:10)
As for the rest, as I mentioned the other day, I take Matthew 25:31–46 extremely seriously.
I have a similar reaction when I see some of the more caustic attacks on atheists. It’s like we have guests over, and we take a dump right in front of them.
4 Likes
1 Like
Brother, you really need to start writing posts I can actually disagree with. It’s getting boring having to like and completely agree with every single one.
2 Likes