Saturday, August 04, 2012

Can you hate Chick-fil-A and love on Christianity?

QUESTION: If businesses like Chick-fil-A are to be not only boycotted, but prevented from operating in certain places because they make statements in opposition to gay "marriage," then how can practicing gays at the same time argue that they can be faithful Christians when Christianity's founding document categorically condemns homosexuality--in both the Old and New Testaments? If they can't be customers of the former, how can they be adherents of the latter

ANSWER: ???

32 comments:

B. Dicker said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

I guess the same way people who wear shirts which are a blend of cotton and polyester at the same time argue that they can be faithful Christians when Christianity's founding document categorically garment of different sorts.

Martin Cothran said...

B Dicker,

I had to delete your post for a number of reasons, all of which would have been unnecessary if, instead of fairly primitive anti-religious vitriol, you had addressed the issue with an actual argument.

I know that's not popular with atheist trolls on the internet, but that's mostly what we do around here.

Martin Cothran said...

Anonymous,

I think you are missing a word or two in your post. Hopefully, that will render it more coherent.

KyCobb said...

As though anyone ever had a problem figuring out a theological argument to support their beliefs.

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

Yes. I notice this with atheists too.

Anonymous said...

I guess the same way people who wear cotton/polyester shirts argue that they can be faithful Christians when Christianity's founding document categorically condemns garments of mixed material.

KyCobb said...

Martin,

Always ready to invoke the mbf, huh?

Martin Cothran said...

Okay, this thread gets more inscrutable as it goes. I give up, KyCobb, was is an "mbf"?

KyCobb said...

Magical Balance Fairy

Martin Cothran said...

Oh, right. It's listed right here with the "mag": magical argument fairy.

ZPenn said...

As a former Christian, I once believed that the bible was the infallible and holy word of God. I still find it hard to understand how anyone could possibly be a Christian, and yet pick and choose the pieces of the scripture which they adhere to. It is illogical. Either the Word of God is trustworthy, and you should live your life by it, or it is not, and it should be treated like any other piece of literature. So, yes, I think people who are homosexual and also claim to believe that the Bible is the Holy Word of God are absolutely living a contradiction. Their religion is of their own invention, and is a bastardization of Christianity, which clearly condemns their lifestyle.

However, I don't really care whether or not homosexuals want to be Christians any more or less than I care about the people who actually follow the teachings of the Bible believing what they want to believe. Why should I care what other people choose to believe? That's not any of my business.

I like the first amendment. It's a great thing we have here in the US. The first amendment is the entire reason I am able to openly declare my belief that the supernatural does not exist, and that I see no rational basis for it. This declaration is in no way an atheist "evangelism" though. I don't want to force my atheism on people any more than I want Christianity or Islam forced upon me. I love freedom, and I love the ability to discuss religion in an open forum without fear of persecution. I think discussion is a great way to test your own beliefs, and to find out where your own arguments may be weak. Also, it's fun, so there's that.

TL;DR

To answer your question Martin: They can't. Any homosexual practicing Christianity is living a contradiction. There is some serious cognitive dissonance there. However, many Christians seem to play fast and loose with which parts of the bible they live by, and which they would like to ignore. I have a lot more respect for the Christians who take their Bible literally and hold to the weirder pieces of doctrine than those who "believe in Jesus" and don't live by their own scriptures.

Lee said...

> Either the Word of God is trustworthy, and you should live your life by it, or it is not, and it should be treated like any other piece of literature.

Yep. That's what the Calvinists believe, too. You didn't have to leave Christianity to arrive at your conclusion.

> To answer your question Martin: They can't. Any homosexual practicing Christianity is living a contradiction.

This is true only if taken to the philosophical level. At the practical level, one can indeed be at once a homosexual and a Christian, provided that the homosexual understands the practice of homosexual sex to be a sin.

A Christian with homosexual desires is no more or no less a Christian than every other Christian in the world who has to get out of bed and do battle every day with the sin that lives within him.

Just because you are not a homosexual doesn't mean you are without sin in your life. Christians are as full of sin as anyone else. The difference is that a Christian cannot allow himself to become comfortable with his sin. Sin must be repented. Not celebrated. We count on the Holy Spirit to show us our sin so that we may repent it before it warps and depraves us.

Sexual desire is not something we seem to have much control over, as human beings; nonetheless, we are held responsible for how we deal with it. It is something almost all of us have to struggle with, particularly in our youth.

But celebrating heterosexual conquests and exploits (outside of marriage) is no better than celebrating rampant homosexuality, from a "sin" perspective.

ZPenn said...

Lee:

I am aware that this is the perspective of many Christians, not just those of us who have "strayed". In fact, that is the perspective that I took when I was a Christian; I took the bible to be literal and believed the entire thing was true. I of course reject that now, but I believed it was basically an all or nothing dichotomy even back when I was a Christian. If this makes me a former Calvinist, then I guess that's what I used to be.

However, as an aside, wasn't Calvin a determinist? I certainly was never a determinist while I was a Christian. Heck, back then I believed in free will.

Also, I recognize that the unconscious "desire" or predisposition for homosexual behavior in and of itself is not considered sinful anymore than any other thought according to most Christian teachings, but by "homosexuals" I had intended to refer to practitioners of homosexual acts, which are certainly contradictions to Christian doctrine. I am sorry for my lack of clarity on the subject.

An interesting thing, however, is that you stated that sexual desire is a thing we don't have much control over. Does this include homosexual desire? I don't want to put words in your mouth, as I certainly don't know if this is what you personally believe, but a few churches I used to attend claimed that homosexuality is a choice, and is not something that just happens naturally. Do you hold that homosexuality (not the actions, but the state of being) is a choice, or do you think it is something that a gay person is unable to prevent from the outset?

Also, what of the verse in which Jesus likens looking upon a woman with lust to committing the act of adultery? Where is the line drawn between uncontrollable natural desire, and the sin of lust? Does this situation only applied to heterosexuals, or is homosexual lust included in this condemnation by Jesus?

I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on the subject. The mechanics of theology have always been interesting to me; it's certainly a very complicated and interesting system.

Lee said...

> However, as an aside, wasn't Calvin a determinist? I certainly was never a determinist while I was a Christian. Heck, back then I believed in free will.

It's certainly a form of determinism. How you come down on it depends on how you answer the question: is God in charge?

Either He is in charge and things happen because He wills them to happen.

Or He is a spectator sitting in the bleachers just dying to find out how it all ends.

Regarging free will, the question is whether man is capable of choosing God without God first choosing him. You can build a case either way from the Bible, and a lot of thoughtful people come down on the other side from where I sit. But to me, Paul in Romans is pretty clear that man is dead in sin and that would imply we need God to wake us up to our danger.

> An interesting thing, however, is that you stated that sexual desire is a thing we don't have much control over. Does this include homosexual desire? I don't want to put words in your mouth, as I certainly don't know if this is what you personally believe, but a few churches I used to attend claimed that homosexuality is a choice, and is not something that just happens naturally.

I think there are some things that we can choose today which later we can lose the ability to unchoose, so to speak. Addiction falls into that camp -- e.g., the person with the crack addiction wasn't addicted until he chose to try crack. Whether homosexuals chose their path originally or whether they were led there through genetic, er, "determinism", I don't think it matters -- they appear to get locked into a sexual desire from which it appears hard to break loose.

The idea, though, that someone was born that way and thus not responsible doesn't find much Biblical support. The idea that sin has become part of our genetic makeup is not far-fetched.

Anyhow, if it's not homosexuality, it's going to be something. Gluttony, perhaps -- there may be a genetic component behind obesity too, after all. Maybe the lack of empathy that fuels theft, murder and all sorts of unkindness has a genetic origin, for all I know.

But we are all born into sin and are in deep trouble because of them.

> Does this situation only applied to heterosexuals, or is homosexual lust included in this condemnation by Jesus?

My opinion? Sexual lust is sexual lust. It is very hard to be a young man.

> The mechanics of theology have always been interesting to me; it's certainly a very complicated and interesting system.

I'm certainly no expert, but I enjoy talking about it and exchanging ideas.




















ZPenn said...

Lee:

I'm glad you enjoy discussing it as well! At the very least, it is entertaining and a good way to see what other people think about things.

Regarding the original sin framework, I understand that the Bible claims all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory, which makes a specific genetic predisposition to sins irrelevant on a theological level, being that we are working on the assumption that "all" are born with a predisposition to sin in general. However, I would argue that some sinful predispositions are harder to overcome than others, leading to a bit of... well, unfairness.

Certain sins, such as pride, greed, gluttony, selfishness, envy, et cetera, appear to be treated in a very different way by the church than homosexuality. While all these things are condemned, and according to James 2:10, they are essentially equivalent in the eyes of God, they do not seem to be treated equivalently. While no church will claim that they think the sin of pride is "OK", they don't treat perpetrators of pride as if they are hell bound.

Let me set up a hypothetical situation. For the sake of argument, let's ignore the Christians who are actively striving to eliminate all forms of sin from their lives. Let's assume there are two Christians. Christian number one has realized that he has sin in his life, and Jesus and His sacrifice on the cross is the only one who has the power to remove his sin. This Christian has completely turned his life around, and in many ways has striven to eliminate sin from his life. However, he isn't perfect. He has a problem with lying. He knows that these lies are wrong, but he chooses to continue on lying, because they are only "white lies", and he doesn't even do it that often. He doesn't seek forgiveness, because he knows that he isn't going to stop lying, because it isn't really all that bad, and he isn't hurting anyone.

Is this man condemned to Hell for his white lies that he isn't giving up? Even if he knows they are wrong, but he makes the conscious choice to do them anyway?

Shift to the second hypotheical person. He has recently become a believer in Jesus, but he is homosexual. He knows that God condemns his homosexuality, but he also can't bring himself to give it up. It's uncontrollable, and he justifies it as a natural urge that he can't help. He therefore strives to give up all of his other sins, but he continues to have sexual relations with men because he just doesn't think it's all that bad.

Is he condemned to Hell for his unwillingness to give up his homosexuality? If yes, why is it any different from the liar (unless you think they are both condemned, in which case Heaven is going to be a sparsely populated place- way too many people who claim to be Christians don't follow their own Bible very well)

Lee said...

> ...Regarding the original sin framework, I understand that the Bible claims all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory, which makes a specific genetic predisposition to sins irrelevant on a theological level...

You said it better, but that's what I was saying.

> ...being that we are working on the assumption that "all" are born with a predisposition to sin in general.

I think it's actually worse than that. We are imbued in sin from the very start. It's less like someone who strays from the good and finds himself wandering at times in the bad, but more like we are the cucumbers in a vast barrel full of vinegar and pickling spice called sin. Paul said we are dead in sin. Isaiah said that our righteous deeds are as filthy rags in the Lord's view (how must He view our unrighteous ones?). We are without hope except through Jesus. He'll cleanse us of our sin -- which is to say, He'll turn us back into fresh cucumbers. :) I mean, pure souls.

This puts a little different spin on things than most discussions of this sort, which tend to take on the problem in terms of, how bad does a person have to be to go to Hell? In reality it runs the other way: Hell is the default destination for everyone, and the question is, what must we do to avoid it?

> However, I would argue that some sinful predispositions are harder to overcome than others, leading to a bit of... well, unfairness.

No doubt. But fairness is something of a human concept, I think, related to justice but not the same thing. The Bible talks about justice and even vengeance, but I don't think it promises fairness. One of the prophets told Sennacherib's men that their leader had been born to one purpose and one purpose only: to be destroyed in order to show the power of God to His people. How fair was that?

> While no church will claim that they think the sin of pride is "OK", they don't treat perpetrators of pride as if they are hell bound.

Well, I've heard many Christians say, "Hate the sin but love the sinner." Problem is, as I recall, the gay rights groups are quite derisive of that construction.

But I don't know how else it can be. If anything less than a full-throated approval of the homosexual lifestyle is to be taken as an expression of anti-gay hate and bigotry, then there is not much a Christian can say to satisfy the gays.

I think where things get dicey, though, is the refusal to repent. And I think that's the same whether talking about any sin -- pride, gluttony, or homosexual sex. Celebrating that lifestyle and demanding that it be accorded the same respect as marriage can be construed, reasonably, as a refusal to repent.

But as sins go, C.S. Lewis gives the pole position to pride, as the worst sin of all. Whether Lewis is correct, I don't know, but I am not convinced that homosexuality is seen by Christians as worse than other sins.

In short: sin is very bad, but it's the unrepentant attitude that gets most of us into real trouble, I think.

Lee said...

> Let me set up a hypothetical situation...

Here is how I see your scenario: hypothetical Christian who tells white lies sounds unrepentant. (I've never met anyone who habitually told small lies who wouldn't also tell big ones, but I'll stick to the parameters of your scenario.) Interestingly, though the Bible makes clear the Lord values honesty, "Thou shalt not tell lies" is not part of the Ten Commandments. But "Thou shalt not bear false witness is" -- those are lies of a more serious sort, I think. I'm not theologian enough to be able to tell you whether telling white lies constitutes a sin. I feel intuitively that it's wrong, but not in the same class as other, more damaging lies. Either way, this Christian is unrepentant, and I think that bodes ill. He must depend on the Holy Spirit to show this to him.

And the Christian who is a homosexual? I think he can still be a Christian, even if he has trouble controlling his desires, so long as he doesn't make peace with his sin. Speaking from experience, I repent sins every day that I feel fairly well doomed to commit again and again, if not at the first or second opportunity, probably by the ninth or tenth. I too have to depend on the Holy Spirit for the strength to resist.

I don't think sins in one area can be traded off against virtues in other areas. There was a great scene in the 1985 movie, "Heaven Help Us", wherein one of the boys in a Catholic high school, on his way to confession, instructs his fellow students to do just that. "Oh no, you can't tell the priest you did *that* ten times! Tell him you did it five times and told five lies."

I don't think repentance works like that. Committing a sin because your entire psychology makes it seem futile to resist is one thing; believing the sin to be okay because you don't see anything wrong, or have somehow justified it, is another.

ZPenn said...

Lee:

Interesting analysis. I would like to point out that though I support the legalization of gay marriage, I certainly do not agree with the leftist sentiment that Christians harbor "hate" for homosexuals. Growing up in a Christian home, I am certain that this is not the case. If I was convinced my gay friends were going to Hell, I think I would be morally obligated to at the very least tell them that I thought they were wrong. However, being that I don't find anything inherently immoral about homosexuality, and I also don't believe Hell exists, I fall to the side of fighting for the rights of my gay friends to be with the ones they love. Also, I will fight for the rights of my Christian friends to practice their beliefs, and I will never accuse them of hatred when that is clearly a straw man argument based on ignorance.

I would have to agree that there is a very large difference between fairness and justice, though it did always bother me that it would be more difficult for some to come to Christ than others. This isn't exactly a theological argument, but it just felt really sucky that certain people who grew up in certain conditions would have a lower probability of coming to Christ simply by the nature of their biology and environment, things that they have no personal control over. Of course now, it doesn't bother me, since I don't believe that it is true, but It was always uncomfortable for me back when I believed in Christianity.

I'm glad you invoked Lewis, because I have immense respect for that man's book Mere Christianity. I disagree with it completely, but I have never read the arguments of a Christian Apologist presented in such an intelligent and professional manner. His rhetoric is skillful, and his writing style is eloquent. If anything, I wish more modern apologists would present their arguments like Lewis, rather than that buffoon William Lane Craig (no offense intended if anyone here like Dr Craig, but his arguments infuriate me because his conclusions do not follow logically from his premises, and most of his premises I reject).

Lee said...

> I fall to the side of fighting for the rights of my gay friends to be with the ones they love.

The way I see it, nobody is telling gays they can't be with who they love. Some of us simply do not wish our society to grant approval of the relationship. The official granting of approval is what separates marriage from shacking up.

They can shack up all they want and I shouldn't be able to force them to do otherwise.

But I disapprove of the relationship and I shouldn't be forced to do otherwise.

> I would have to agree that there is a very large difference between fairness and justice, though it did always bother me that it would be more difficult for some to come to Christ than others.

Then you definitely wouldn't like Calvinism. Their position is that you are chosen by God and will be with him for eternity, or you are not and can never be.

And would never want to be.

The parable about Lazarus and the rich man is interesting to me, from that perspective. It's pretty rich in meaning, so I won't pretend to do it justice here, but one fact has always stuck in my mind for some reason. When the rich man opens his eyes in Hades, in agony, and speaks to Abraham, first he asks him to send Lazarus across with water on his fingers that he might cool his tongue. Then he asks to go and warn his brothers, who are still alive.

Now, this has puzzled me for years: why did the rich man never ask to be allowed to join Abraham and Lazarus where they were, presumably, in Heaven, but in a nicer place regardless?

Maybe he realized it would be futile.

Or maybe he just didn't really want to be there.

Lee said...

I'll bite: What is buffoonish about William Lane Craig?

ZPenn said...

I don't believe the legalization of gay marriage is the same as Christians approving of gay marriage. Christians can disapprove of it without making it illegal. The fact is, the first amendment of our constitution establishes the United States government as a secular entity. A secular entity primarily made up of religious people with religious principles, but still a secular entity. This nature should prevent it from legislating purely religious ideas, but also allow it to do so without staining the hands of Christians who don't like some of these laws. A Christian is never compelled to condone or even recognize homosexual marriage just because he votes in favor of decriminalizing it.

Honestly, I'd rather not legalize gay marriage anyway, if I had my personal choice. It's better than what we have now, but in my ideal world all marriage would be de-legalized. I don't understand why any marriage is a legal matter. The fact is, marriage is a religious institution, and it always has been. There is no reason the government should have anything to say about marriage at all. All marriage should be de-legalized (not illegalized) and left to the individual citizens and churches to define for themselves. This is a dream that will probably never come to fruition in my lifetime, marriage has become intertwined with the legal system too deeply and for to long to reasonably expect it to just be removed, so I will settle for the legalization of gay marriage over the current system.

If that's Calvinism, then no, I want absolutely nothing to do with that God. Of course, if the Calvinist God does exist, I guess I don't have a choice in the matter, do I?

In reference to the parable, I am familiar with it. In fact, I am very familiar with a lot of the Bible, as I studied it dilligently for years, read through the entire thing more than once, and I would hazard a guess I am more familiar with its contents and the protestant interpretation of its theology than the majority of people my age who claim to be Christians. I would love to discuss the context of passages and their theological implications at any time, as I said before: the mechanics of theology fascinate me; probably more so now than they ever did while I was a believer.

In respect to the passage that you referenced, I always read it as the man knowing that he was doomed to Hell eternally, and had no hope, but he loved his brothers and hoped for the chance to spare them his fate. So, as you said, he recognized the futility. It's a rather heartbreaking tale, to be honest. I think it would make for great film material. I don't really think he didn't want to be there. Assuming Hell is as terrible as it is described in the Bible, I don't think anyone will have the pride and arrogance to stick to their guns after arrival. In fact, I believe there is a biblical passage which corroborates this. In the end, won't every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord? Even Lucifer himself will admit Christ's glory in the end, but it won't save him. Is this not correct? So no, I think the man wishes to be saved from Hell, but he knows that he is doomed.

ZPenn said...

In reference to Craig's buffoonery, there are many reasons that I'm sure I could write pages about, so I'll try to pick just the most annoying things about him.

Firstly, he makes the argument that

1. Everything that exists had a creator (I don't buy premise 1, but I'll concede it for the sake of argument)

2. The Universe exists

3. Therefore the universe has a creator

The problem with this argument is that I can replace this argument with my own.

1. Everything that exists has a creator

2. God exists

3. God must have a creator.

This is an infinite loop. It sounds good at first glance, but it is a poor argument.

Also, I have heard him debate atheists, and he always seems to start his case with a large number of "arguments" for God's existence. He then ends his set of arguments by saying something to the extent of "the atheist has to first tell me how ALL of my arguments are wrong, and THEN construct an argument to prove atheism"

The atheist will then spend his time deconstructing as many of the arguments that he can (but since deconstructing an argument takes more time than contracting one, he will never get through all of them in the time allotted in such a debate) and then Craig will make the most intellectually dishonest speech about how he won the debate, which normally goes something like, "The atheist only addressed half of my arguments, and then failed to make an argument of his own FOR atheism. Clearly he has no legs to stand on" This is so ridiculous that it actually angers me. The atheist doesn't have to argue "for" atheism, because atheism isn't a belief "in" something. It is a belief that something DOESN'T exist. The only arguments "for" atheism, are deconstruction of arguments "for" Theism. There is no atheist god that exists out there which an atheist has to produce evidence of, but Dr Craig appears to think so. The man is a hack, and Christian apologists should denounce him if they want to have an honest conversation about their beliefs with intelligent human beings. At least CS Lewis had the decency to form his arguments in a coherent and intellectually honest format. I may disagree with him, but I respect him a whole lot.

Lee said...

> I don't believe the legalization of gay marriage is the same as Christians approving of gay marriage.

Well, what I believe is that it's the same as society at large officiallly approving a gay relationships. That's what marriage is, and it's what separates it from shacking up.

And since Christians are a component of society, they have a say-so in whether society is to grant official approval of such relationships.

And they may not win. I understand that. However, I would prefer that, if we lose, we lose by legislation and not by federal judge end-run. There are some in here who will have you believe the Constitution upholds gay marriage as a right, of course it does, can't you read, stupid?

Lee said...

> I will settle for the legalization of gay marriage over the current system.

> If that's Calvinism, then no, I want absolutely nothing to do with that God.

Well, you've already rejected Him, even the fluffier cosmic-muffin version.

> Of course, if the Calvinist God does exist, I guess I don't have a choice in the matter, do I?

That's sort of the idea. If God exists, God is God, He is what He is, and it doesn't matter what we might want Him to be.

Calvinism is simply a set of principles for interpreting the Bible. It's not the only set of principles. For most of my life, I was an Arminian. The Biblical evidence may lead you to one or the other, or some alternative set of principles. It's a rich area for disagreement and debate.

But most of the Calvinists I know, including me, are reluctant Calvinists. During one study I participated in, a woman who had come to our church from a Baptist background fought the pastor every step of the way. Finally, in exasperation, she exclaimed, "I don't *like* this theology!"

The pastor responded, "Nobody likes it, at least not at first. But the Bible is the inerrant word of God and that forces us to try to understand what it's telling us."

(Like you, she wanted no part of "that God" and eventually left the church.)

For me, the choice of whether to be a Calvinist -- or "Reformed" as we like to say -- hinges on the basic question: Is God in charge? Regarding human will, does He know who will choose Him? Or is He sitting on the bleachers just dying to find out how the game ends?

If God knows how you're going to choose, then that sort of brings the whole 'free will' thing under scrutiny, doesn' it?

But somehow a God who does not know strikes me as not terribly omniscient.

Those are my feeble thoughts on the matter, anyway.

Lee said...

> In reference to the parable, I am familiar with it. In fact, I am very familiar with a lot of the Bible, as I studied it dilligently for years, read through the entire thing more than once, and I would hazard a guess I am more familiar with its contents and the protestant interpretation of its theology than the majority of people my age who claim to be Christians.

You might well know it better than I do. I wouldn't be surprised. Of course, only the Holy Spirit can grant understanding, so if you have rejected Him, it stands to reason you wouldn't understand what the Bible is telling you, at least on the crucial points. But I'm optimistic. Maybe you'll change your mind again.

> I would love to discuss the context of passages and their theological implications at any time, as I said before: the mechanics of theology fascinate me; probably more so now than they ever did while I was a believer.

I find that curious.

> In respect to the passage that you referenced, I always read it as the man knowing that he was doomed to Hell eternally, and had no hope, but he loved his brothers and hoped for the chance to spare them his fate. So, as you said, he recognized the futility. It's a rather heartbreaking tale, to be honest.

That may well be the correct interpretation. But I do believe there are people who believe He exists and yet do not love Him but carry an implacable hatred for Him.

Lee said...

I'll move on to your critique of Craig when I get some time.

Lee said...

The only place I've ever heard Mr. Craig's name is reading posts on here on Martin's blog. When our particular church touts particular Christian apologists, it usually goes for representatives of the so-called "presuppositionalist" school. So I've heard of Cornelius Van Til, Greg Bahnsen, and Doug Wilson (who is not really an apologist scholar, but made the rounds in debate with Christopher Hitchens on a few memorable occasions).

And I happen to know that Martin takes a fairly dim view of the presuppositionalists, preferring the Thomist approach.

Personally, I think they have a point. It is always incumbent upon a Christian apologist to make a case as to how and why God exists. Atheists, on the other hand, adopt the viewpoint that atheism is a reasonable assumption and theism has the burden of proof.

However, intellectually, I do think atheists do bear some responsibility to explain how certain things have come to pass, given their premises. The burden of proof is not all one-sided.

We have discussed these issues many times on Martin's blog. A materialist, for example, needs to explain how order derived from chaos, how logic and reason became authoritative in debate, and (if the discussion is about ethics) why we as individual, decision-making men are morally bound to put our own self-interests aside when dealing with a so-called higher truth.

The Christian perspective of such things has the twin virtues of simplicity and plausibility: since order, wisdom and goodness are all part of God's character, it provides us with a built-in standard that we, constructed in His image, recognize when we see it.

But how does the atheist arrive at similar conclusions, given his premises? Please note: I am not saying that there are no moral atheists. I'm saying an atheist should explain *why* he ought to be moral *given* his world view.

And if he can't, he should acknowledge that, like mistletoe depends on the oak, atheist ethics depend on something other than their own premises.

I take a position on this issue similar to your position on Christianity: show me. Given the premises at least of materialism, nothing exists except the physical. Therefore, no abstractions exist apart from the molecules and electrons whirling in the mind of man. There can be no eternal truths at all, because thinking man has only been here for a short while and will someday inexorably become extinct. When he is gone, so is the good. So is logic and reason. As I see it, that makes man higher than ethics, higher than logic, higher than reason, since he was their creator.

So if man is higher than these things, why not any given individual man?

Following this logic, the only thing wrong with the great mass murderers of history is that we don't like them. We don't want to be murdered ourselves. But calling these guys "evil" is like calling a scorpion evil when it kills and eats a spider. It's like calling a meteor evil when it hits the earth and wipes out the dinosaurs. We're simply animals, doing what animals do. Clever animals, to be sure, with an amazing ability to frame our own individual wants and desires as some sort of higher truth.

ZPenn said...

Lee,

In reference to the "approval" of homosexual marriage by society, I entirely disagree. Here are some things I disapprove of, which are entirely legal, and should be. Drunkeness (not just mild alcohol consumption, but someone who drinks so much that they are a burden upon everyone their insignificant lives touch). Cheating in a relationship is vile to me. The fact that people attend KKK rallies or participate in neo-nazi groups is distressing. Every vile and hateful word said by the members of Westboro Baptist Church at funerals of soldiers who fought for their rights to spew their filth. These things are all terrible, and the majority of society as a general rule looks at all of these things with disgust. However, we keep these things legal because we love the first amendment and the rights that it gives to us. It is worth keeping those terrible things that we hate legalized. I reject this notion that legalizing homosexual marriage is condoning it. If you value your freedom to express your religious beliefs, you should fight for the rights of the homosexuals to live out the lifestyle that you believe to be wrong. Especially since religious people are the only people who seem to have a problem with it. There are a lot of people who believe your beliefs to be hateful (myself not included, I assure you. I will fight in the realm of public opinion for your right to express your beliefs for as long as I live), and they would love to see your religion shackled by government regulations. I hope you see that setting a precendent against the first amendment in any legislation could be harmful for you in the long run.

You claim that you would prefer this matter be settled by legislation, rather than in the courts, but this is not how the constitution works. The legislative branch does not determine the constitutionality of laws, the judicial branch does. Likewise, the bench does not have the ability to legislate, but instead they have the ability to review the laws passed by the legislative branch in the light of the constitution. The three branches of government ignore the powers granted to them by the constitution and bleed into the other branches territory all too often in modern times, and this scares me. If we allow the constitution to continue to be ignored, we may be in for a future run by dictators who convince the people that we still live in a representative republic, as they slowly take away our personal freedoms.

ZPenn said...

Of course I reject the cosmic muffin God, that happy-go-lucky hippy fantasy makes the God of the Bible seem downright realistic. People who claim to be Christians who think of God in those terms haven’t read the Bible very well. The Character of God is mysterious, but there are many well defined traits in the scriptures, not the least of which is His justice. However, be careful with accusing me of rejecting him because I don’t like him. I don’t like a lot of things that I believe to be true, and I rather like a lot of ideas that I believe to be false. The reason I reject God is because I don’t believe that He exists, not because I don’t like Him. If you think that is my reasoning, then you are accusing me of being stupid, because only stupid people believe things strongly just because they rather like it that way. That is not why I left the church, and it was not an overnight decision. I tried for a very long time to convince myself that God existed, and it was incredibly difficult to finally accept that I couldn’t pretend to believe in a God that I no longer thought existed. Many parts of my life would be easier if I were a Christian- the majority of my friends and all of my family believe strongly in God. Since I became an atheist, I’ve been a lot more alone in the world, but I can’t just believe in God because it would improve my quality of life. I can’t force myself to believe that God exists any more than I can convince myself that 2+2=5.

“Maybe you’ll change your mind again”

Maybe so, I would like to think I have an open mind. Many opinions that I hold, I have changed when evidence has been shown to me which shows me that I am wrong. If evidence of God’s existence appears before me, I will be compelled to change my mind. I’m not holding my breath though. I don’t know why you find it curious that I am more interested in scriptures post Atheism. When I believed in God, I loved reading the bible, but I never approached it as a piece of literature. I only saw it from the perspective of “This is the divine work of God through men”. Now I look at it as an excellent collection of literature, with many genres and ideas that are the foundation of almost all of modern literature in some form or fashion. It is a beautiful work, full of imagery, and poetry, and prose, and arguments, and ideas. It’s fascinating.

ZPenn said...

I don’t hate God. How can I hate that which doesn’t exist? And if He does exist, how can I hate a being of such pure justice which passes human understanding? I don’t hate God, nor do I hate Christianity. In fact, I credit Christianity as a reason for the quality education I received from my parents in my early formative years. You might say I love Christianity, I just reject its veracity.

I’m not too familiar with presupositionalists, but what I’ve seen has seemed a little silly. I won’t rush to judge though, because I honestly haven’t studied their arguments very thoroughly, so it would be unfair for me to criticize them at this time.

You say that some premises of atheists need evidence, and there is a burden of proof upon atheists. I personally see no burden of proof upon the atheist position, which is essentially a default position, but I am open to what you have to say about it. What are some of these premises that you think need evidence?

I notice that you are bringing up the moral argument, and you think that atheists must account for why we believe in morality at all. Honestly, I guess I’d have to say I don’t believe in “objective” morality. I think morality is something that evolved naturally, just like everything else. Morality is useful, it helps a species to survive, and beyond that, to thrive. But no, I don’t think there is a higher moral authority beyond and outside of man. I think morality occurs naturally. I see no reason why morality can’t have occurred naturally, and honestly see no reason to believe that morality would need a higher power to exist. Your final paragraph, on mass murderers being no more “evil” than a meteor that wipes out the dinosaurs; it depends on what you mean by evil. If you mean that there is some physical difference between these two things, than I agree, they are equivalent. The difference is that the word evil doesn’t just mean, “bad”, but it is applied to bad things which conscious beings do. Intent is necessary for evil to exist, but evil is only a definition. In the grand scheme of things, human being are just physical beings that happen to have the ability to reason. There is no universal scorecard which knows the difference between good and bad. We as a culture have defined these things for ourselves through a process of societal evolution.

ZPenn said...

Finally, you said materialists need to explain how order came from chaos. I feel like you are referencing the second law of thermodynamics, here, are you not? Well, I'd hate to break it to you, but my area of study is physics and mathematics, and I know a little about the law of entropy (often colloquialized as "out of order comes disorder"), and it is certainly true. However, creationists like to use this law to say that this "disorder" of the natural world couldn't have resulted in the complex and "ordered" beings such as humans. This is an easy misunderstanding to make, because physicists use the word "order" a little bit differently than your average person uses it. From a physical perspective, humanity at large is significantly less ordered than the first life on our planet, and all of that is significantly less ordered than the early universe. Also, it is important to note that using energy we can make "disorderly" things more "orderly", but we always lose more energy than we get out of such processes. If you have a refrigerator, you have a perfect example of such a system. Using external energy, the system inside the fridge is cooled (brought to a more orderly state) by increasing the disorder of the system outside of the fridge.