Tag Archives: morality

Moral Lark – An Atheist’s Argument for God’s Non-Existence: Morality (3)

11 Thursday Jan 2018

Posted by in Atheism, God

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

“Atheism stresses moral responsibility and the need to make moral decisions appropriate to the here and now, rather than just acting in accordance with religious scriptures and always with a view to a reward or punishment in some unproven after-life. Some of these ideas are addressed in more detail in the sections on the Moral Argument and the Argument from Justice.”

REPLY: What a lark! This is the weakest of all the arguments atheists put forth for the non-existence of God. Take note of the empty remark by Madalyn O’Hair: “An Atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist believes that deeds must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death.” This is nothing but a straw-man attempt to make fun of Christians. In truth, there is no argument in what she said, and neither is there any substance in her words, otherwise.

Since an atheist cannot not identify that which is intrinsically good or bad, I find this remark interesting: “Religion tends to give people bad reasons to behave well…because a god wants you to do it, or will reward you for doing it, or will punish you for not doing it…” Really? A bad reason? Then there is this: “when good reasons are actually available…out of concern for the suffering of others or for the need to tread lightly on the earth, because it is the ‘right thing to do’.” What makes what he said “good”? Remember, in an earlier piece he said, “In the atheist hypothesis, on the other hand, there is no expectation that the world should be a good place, or that evil should not exist.” If there is no expectation the world is a good place, or should be a good place, then how can “good” exist?

Yes, I know, there is a difference between the quality “good” existing and whether the world is a good place or not. But, in the case of the atheistic argument, there is no standard available to determine whether anything can be ascribed as “good” or not. Remember, it’s nothing but a human construct, thus, it does not really exist. “There is no fixed and unchanging Platonic form or essence of evil. Like good, evil is merely a human construct, and to call something “evil” does not lead us to a greater understanding of evil behaviour.”

Jesus made this same point when He asked of a young man, “Why do you call me good?” He followed up with the clear observation from heaven, “No one is good but One, that is, God.” (Matthew 19:17, NKJV). “Good” as a human construct? If so, then there is no such quality existing in life. The sheer number of people living on earth at one time, allows for the word to be defined however one wants. “Good” as a construct from heaven, allows one to understand the word “good” in relation to God’s holiness. There is no “good” outside the will of a being. Man’s only two options.

One’s ethical behavior is motivated by something. It may be motivated by affection, judgment, love, pressure or something else. It is fool-hardy to say it is not motivated by some response one gains from another. Should a person not steal only because there is fear is getting caught? “No, you should not steal because you take for yourself what belongs to another, and that is wrong.” An atheist can’t tell you why this is the wrong course of action to take (stealing from others), except to say, “This is what I think about the matter.” “So!” another might reply, “What does it matter to me why you think this? Your opinion is of no more value than my own; I think differently!”

This is illustrated well by Bertrand Russell’s daughter, in her book, My Father Bertrand Russell (Katherine Russell Tait, Harcourt, NY, 1975). “In the last volume of his Autobiography, written toward the end of his life, my father wrote: ‘We feel that the man who brings widespread happiness at the expense of misery to himself is a better man than the man who brings unhappiness to others and happiness to himself. I do not know of any rational ground for this view, or, perhaps, for the somewhat more rational view that whatever the majority desires is preferable to what the minority desires” (p. 182).

Thus, the so-called argument put forth by atheists is based on the foundation of moral responsibility (for which there is not rational ground (foundation) is nothing but “mid-air-hanging.” To the atheistic way, a non-prudent person is just as moral as a prudent person. There is no real, substantive distinction between either. If moral values do not derive their existence from “divine edict”, then their existence is derived from the fluidity of man’s thinking. Is adultery wrong? Why? Because society says so? What difference does it make if society says it’s wrong? Society can just as easily say it is right some time in the future! Real substance in that!

Katherine Tait saw the emptiness of atheism, and knew it was not for her – at all. She left the empty philosophy and moved to a moral philosophy that is not of this world.

 

Atheism is Alive and Well in Congress

04 Wednesday Oct 2017

Posted by in Atheism, evil, God, Morality

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Some atheistic remarks in relation to an abortion law proposed by the House GOP in Congress: “Women across the country deserve better. This law is a continuation of the Republican Party’s assault on women’s reproductive health” (Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Niles). “This bill is a cruel and ruthless attempt to undermine women and attack our rights to govern our bodies” (Rep. Gwen Moore, D-Wisconsin).

The Dispatch (A-15, 10.4.2017) speaks of the law having no chance to pass in the Senate, and this may well be the case. If so, then why try? Because the life of children is on the line! “It’s not that bad!” someone might say. The Dispatch cites a 2013 Center for Disease Control stat: “…of the more than 664,000 reported abortions in 2013, 1.3 percent occurred at least 21 weeks into development.” Is there some sort of virtue in this low percentage? That is still over 6,000 murders!

Part of the justification to oppose the legislative effort is in relation to pain suffered. Evidently, according to some, pain in the womb by a child is not felt until “at least 24 weeks of development” occurred.

Thus, the moral standard is “suffering” and “pain,” not the nature of life as given by God. Atheism is strong in the Democrat Party!

 

What Moral Principle was Violated?

20 Wednesday Sep 2017

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

Letter to editor

The article headline reads, “Religious leaders gather in moral opposition to Trump” (page A-5, 8/29/2017), but the article never identified exactly what moral principle or principles were compromised. There was mention of white supremacy, the president’s pardon of a sheriff, a point on transgenderism, but nothing about a moral foundation or principle violated. One Baptist preacher said, “When you identify it as a moral issue, then that’s what needs to be done” (that is, stand in opposition).

It would be much easier to stand in opposition to something on moral grounds if 1) the moral foundation transcends man, that is, is greater than man, 2) if it was known! As it is, there was nothing in the article to identify a principle or principles violated. To this point, therefore, that for which some stood opposed was nothing but a matter of opinion, and opinions are like noses…

Morality cannot originate in man and be transcendent of man at the same time. If there is a moral base, a foundation, it must be in God. So, let us now begin to discuss what is moral/not moral based on God’s revealed will.

 

As of 9.2.2017, the LETTER TO EDITOR has not been printed in the hard-copy of the Dispatch, though it was submitted on 8.29.2017

MOSES WAS WRONG IN NUMBERS 31

08 Wednesday Mar 2017

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

In our modern context, trying to understand the nature of the event in Numbers 31 is, for me, a difficult venture. I understand, well enough, what is being said and even why, but when conversing with some in today’s environment, difficulty exists when some inquire about how a New Testament Christian can justify the actions of the Lord. Of course, there is no created being that can justify the actions of the Lord in any decision He made relative to anything (though we do put forth the effort). He needs no justification. Not one of us in position to know what he (the Lord) knows and, consequently, not one of us is in good position to judge rightly.

Though not one of us is in position to rightly judge, every now and again, New Testament Christians are called upon to do exactly what we are not in position to do. This brief discussion below is my own effort at such. I post this for the benefit of others who might be interested and for some critical remarks that might help me be a better student.

My disputant is a man of reasonable ability, very thoughtful. He was once a preacher, graduating from the BTSOP. Some time back he left the Lord and for about 4 years now (2013 until now), he and I have had on/off conversations along this line.

The discussion was generated by a FB post/share I made: http://www.catholicleague.org/whats-wrong-with-slavery-and-rape/

***************************

DLH: Both are tricky topics, as Moses, who is of course a favorite Biblical character of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam; authorized and justified each practice.

Fortunately, among the people with whom I am acquainted who claim any of the aforementioned as their professed Faith, I know of not a single one who would justify either slavery or rape.

Thankfully most of the representatives of the respective Judeo-Christian-Islamic ideologies have moved on from the shortcomings of Moses.

Except regarding War Crimes, which is of course another of those tricky topics to itself.

RT: The shortcomings of Moses were what, and what measurement are you using to so judge?

DLH: Oh, just my general feelings on rape and slavery. As to the shortcomings of Moses, his tolerance for and authorization of each (rape and slavery)

RT: Your feelings, Dave, is not a good measuring stick. Give me express reference to that which Moses authorized.

DLH: I am not gonna bother looking up the laws in Leviticus which Moses cited to regulate Slavery. Surely you will not deny that such are there. By regulating Slavery Moses of course authorized such. (I never was great at memorizing citations from Leviticus “back in the day”, I sure would be at a loss to attempt to do so these days)

As to authorizing Rape, I know you are familiar with the fact that after the Israeli soldiers had killed the Midianite men, women, and sons; that Moses permitted the those same Israeli soldiers to keep the virgins (whose parents and brother they had just killed) “for themselves”. This actually is a “two fer” with reference to the unpleasant topics at hand, in that Moses allowed those Israeli soldiers to make those virgin Midianites their “sex slaves”

Sorry that my feelings on the topic of rape and slavery do not merit as a sufficient measuring stick as to such matters, perhaps you might comment as to by what measuring stick rape and slavery might be justified?

RT: Dave, you have to do better than this. Go back and read what the passages say, then we can talk about them. With regard to your feelings, if that is the only measuring stick, then someone else’s feeling, complimentary or contradictory, is just as authoritative.

DLH: 15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? 16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord. 17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

I even posted KJV. Do I have your permission to discuss this text with you now?  Numbers 31:15-18; biblegateway

RT: Yes, please begin.

DLH: 1. Did Moses do wrong by commanding the Israeli soldiers to kill the Midianite boys? If the answer is yes, then no need to answer Question 2

2. By what standard was Moses justified then to command the Israeli soldiers to kill the Midianite boys?

3. Did Moses do wrong by allowing the Israeli soldiers to keep the virgin Midianite girls “for themselves” (after having killed their brothers). If the answer is yes, then no need to answer Question 4

4. By what standard was Moses justifiied then to allow the Israeli soldiers to keep the virgin Midianite girls “for themselves” (after having killed their brothers)

As a reminder, per my feelings I regard both actions as wrong. As you reject my feelings as a sufficient standard as a measuring stick, then I am asking you for your measuring stick with reference to right and wrong. I had in mind to ask you your feelings regarding Slavery, but since feeling are not a measuring stick, then I ask my question thusly:

5. Do you believe that Slavery is wrong?

6. If the answer to 5 is yes, then please provide the measuring stick by which you arrived at that conclusion.

If you do not feel inclined to answer, then no worries.

RT:  I will cut and paste these in a word document on my laptop, then with a reply. At the moment, a phone is disagreeable. So, probably this evening (I hope)

DLH:  That works!

RT: The only way to judge something to be wrong (or right) is by a standard that adjudicates the actions of man. To answer the question, the answer is no. To people’s way of thinking today, Moses did wrong, but what standard will be used to so assert. Thus, I ask you: if Moses did wrong, what standard will you use to make the case he did wrong? Moses was justified in that which was done by a source greater than himself, that source is the Lord. With regard to your 3rd question, there is nothing in the text that speaks of “brothers” to the females. Just the same, the answer is no for the same reason as set forth in the 2nd answer to your previous question. Your 4th question is answered the same as the answer I gave to the 2nd question you asked.

It seems apparent to me, you judge Moses wrong; how do you know whether or not he was wrong?

Tell me, David, what is the context of this scenario in Numbers 31? Whatever difficulty you and I have about the situation (as recorded), this difficulty does not mitigate against anything relative to the Lord’s decision in this matter. As soon as you judge it otherwise, with your lack of understanding of the situation, I ask again: what standard are you using to apply any “wrongness” to the actions done?

What makes slavery wrong, David? Is there any “rightness” to being a bond-servant (a form of slavery)? If so, then what makes it right? Since slavery is not part of the reading you introduced, I will wait for you to answer my questions before I address yours.

DLH: Re: your first comment “The only way to judge… actions of man”

This of course asserts your opinion. This also explains why you can justify the execution of boys and the abduction of girls into sex slavery; whereas I cannot

My standard of right and wrong is based upon effect; hence I regard Moses as being dead wrong for executing boys and for allowing young virgins to be taken as sex slaves

We could discuss genocide; which in the context of Deut 2 and 3 I am certain you would justify; whereas I maintain Moses was dead wrong there as well

We could discuss the slaying of men, women, and children such as in the context of Joshua 6:21; which I am sure you would justify; whereas I maintain that the Israeli army that day was dead wrong for murdering women and children

We could discuss drowning babies; which in the context of Genesis 6-7 I am certain you would justify, but in my book Jehovah was dead wrong for drowning innocent babies

On and on we could go citing examples of atrocities that you can justify but which I seem as being wrong. That which distinguishes our assessments of certain deeds is of course our differing standards for right and wrong; that which you call the measuring stick; that which I like to term my moral compass

Your standard; which is based upon faith; permits you to justify infanticide, genicide, executions of children, and sex slavery: whereas my standard which is based on feelings, does not permit me to justify such atrocities regardless of who authorizes such

We merely judge right and wrong by different standards old friend

RT: That which you call an opinion has two things going for it. 1) It’s based on trying to understand an objective transcendent standard of morality that is higher than man (something you can’t do). 2) It attempts to understand difficult circumstances in life based on a Judge that will call all people to account (something you will regret).

You judge Moses to be wrong, but for no objective, transcendent reason you can offer. You just assert it, just as you assert genocide in Deuteronomy 2 and 3. Rather than assert, make the case for it being exactly that.

You assert that the Israeli army was wrong in Joshua 6, but you can’t say as to why – only that you don’t like it.

As far as you are concern, with Joshua 6, Genesis 6-7 (others), there is no accountability associated with the wrong-doing of man. If you give room for just a little bit of punitive accountability, you can’t say what is the proper measurement for proper application; you can only say what you would not do.

You speak about sex-slaves, but not an ounce of evidence from the text you inserted do you show. You offer the dishonorable shotgun blast, hoping something will stick – and it doesn’t.

All you are able to offer in this discussion is smoke; there is no substance. You offer no standard of measurement to adjudicate wrong action, only an opinion about what you don’t like. That which you deny exists (God) will be the one you stand before, then what will you offer to him? No doubt, you will say to him what he should not have done, thinking you have the higher moral compass. You go ahead and stick to your moral compass, but it is based on no law that is transcendent, only subjective (the “I thinks” of the world).

My standard is based on something greater than man; yours is not. My standard is based on evidence that God exists, while your standard is based on hope that he does not exist. My standard justifies nothing of which you falsely accuse, but your standard can’t say that it (or anything) is wrong, or even why – only that you feel that it is.

Yes, we judge by different standards; true enough, Dave. Your standard based on effect is the standard of “might makes right” (this was said on purpose to see your response to it).

Dave, you have the last word tonight, assuming you want to reply. If so, I will cut and paste, and try to get word to you tomorrow, that is, I will offer no reply additional reply tonight.

I hope you have a great evening, old (and still) friend (I like your term of affection).

DLH: I think every person lives by standards which are a synthesis of conditioned values and natural values.
My effort is to trust the latter.

Natural values are a moral compass developed from ones natural capacity for compassion; hence forging an ethical code based upon each of one’s daily experiences. I don’t expect you to understand or agree, as such would conflict with your ideology. Suffice it to say that your values which are grounded in faith, allow you to justify actions which are naturally wrong.

The very deeds that you can justify in one situation, I am sure you would be appalled by in a non biblical context.

I know you as a person all too well to actually believe that you can justify the atrocious deeds in the contexts aforementioned on their own merits, yet you find yourself in the awkward position of defending the actions of people who are said to have executed such atrocities merely based upon contexts which you have come to trust as being events in accord with what you perceive to be sacred doctrine.

Your conditioned values are subjective and situational; your natural values are at the core of the fact that you are a good and decent person who lives by a moral code which far exceeds that of Moses, Joshua, and others. Which leads me back to the OP.

I am relieved that the Christians, Jews, and the Muslims with whom I am acquainted have adopted values which exceed those of the shortcomings of Moses; whose values are more represented by extremist factions of each rather than by the average representative of each respective religious ideology so mentioned

RT: It is true that people live by values, and some of them are synthesized; no issue there. Those values, however, came from some source – what is that source? You speak of it as a natural source, which is materialistic and mechanical. The material-chemical components of this takes away free-will, but you earlier said to me (in a previous discussion) that man has free-will, thus is accountable. If no free-will, no accountability. This approach of yours, natural values, is arbitrary, situational (fluid) and unknown to man.

Where there is no law, there is no wrong.

I understand perfectly what it is that you subscribe to, but the inherent failing of that foundation means there is no real wrong in this world or, for that matter, no real right in this world. It is all a matter of what one thinks at the time it is thought. It can be nothing else.

You speak of the values I subscribe to, at least some of them, as being naturally wrong. Really? Tell me how natural law can say anything is wrong apart from “I feel.”

As soon as you begin to delineate between what should and should not be done, another may offer a contrary approach, even contradictory, then how will “nature” determine which is the correct approach? Of course, it can’t.  [A natural perplexity, one might say] This would be “naturally,” you know [lined out text was part of original, but it makes no good sense]. Since homosexuality is against nature and self-defeating, is it wrong?

My values are grounded in a transcendent Being that will call all to account one day.

You have spoken against the situations, but have not offered anything of substance as to why – except that you don’t like it; you can’t say why it is wrong, only that you think it is. You dismiss the context of the situation because you focused on one aspect of it; that is [thus], mishandling information. It’s a lot like those in the political environment who play “gotcha.” Context has everything to do with it, and so does the source/foundation of judgment. Admittedly, I find the situation perplexing – I don’t mind saying so – but I also understand the context of the immediate situation and the whole situation (something you don’t). The one in whom I trust is in far better position to adjudicate than you, me or any other.

You speak about my conditioned values, should you not speak about your own? You can’t show for even a moment that my values, that is, the foundation upon which they are built, is subjective and/or situational. I invite you to try. You also speak about the short-comings of Moses, et al, but offer nothing as to why or what is to replace it – except one’s personal feelings, which is exactly why our modern society is where it is regarding a moral compass. It has none.

Brother, this conversation we have had before, and we both know the direction it goes. I am willing to continue it, but what writing is done by you/me will be for the benefit of those who read it (I will post it on my blog, and I invite you to do the same on yours).

DLH: Ron, you are arguing on behalf of the execution of boys, the taking of virgin girls as sex slaves, infanticide, and genocide. Is it really that difficult to know that such things are wrong? I maintain that in any non-biblical context that you would have no problem judging such atrocities as being wrong.

RT: Dave, I am arguing that the standard you have is no standard at all. In fact, to utilize what you apply, there is no chance anyone can be wrong about anything — none. Whatever questions you have about a standard different and greater than your own does not mitigate against the just nature of it. You have offered nothing authoritative, obligatory, objective or better. In fact, you can’t. The best you can offer is “I feel (or think)”.

 

Addendum – I am disappointed I did not aggressively address the accusations leveled against the Lord better than I did. I guess it is a lesson learned.

LIBERTY

04 Monday Jul 2016

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

It has been said that “liberty, without wisdom, is license.” A powerful remark when one thinks about it. In what sort of way is the remark powerful? Think about it along these lines. We live in a country where freedom is the norm for each of us; yet, this freedom is not absolute. If it were, then each of us could do what is desired at no risk of arrest or imprisonment. Thus, our freedom has limitations. These limitations, however, are necessary for a civil society, and thoughtful people can easily see the rational and wisdom of this.

The limitations that are placed on society have their origin in one of two sources. They are from God or man. Consider the limitations placed on man (society) by God. First, man’s moral makeup is such that there are certain behaviors that are absolutely wrong at any time and in any context. Murder, for instance. Since murder is the taking of innocent life (or unlawful killing with malice as a motivation), there is never a time in which it is morally warranted to take the innocent life of another person. This is why abortion is an inherent evil. Consider another illustration. Adultery. Adultery is willful (voluntary) sexual intercourse of one with another not his/her spouse. When a man and a woman marry, there exist an implied trust between them both. When a man gives himself to his wife, she trusts him to be loyal to her and to no other. When that trust is broken, then the sabotage of the marriage, if not already completed, has a jump start toward completion. Thus, from the vantage point of God, man has placed on him a limitation. The value of this is obvious to any who think on it.

Consider the limitations placed on civil society by man. If God is not the source of liberty, then man determines what it is that can and ought to be done. With regard to the two previous examples (murder, adultery), it cannot be objectively established that either is morally wrong. We have seen this readily in the last half-century. Many in society have jettisoned God and all things righteous and moral from the local community, even including the larger community. Consequently, we have no earthly idea (as a people) what is right and what is wrong. In this there is no liberty, only confusion.

A perfect illustration of this is the current immoral behavior of transgenderism, especially as our current president and those who think as he does have been promoting it. Transgenderism is a choice between two ways of thinking: natural, unnatural – a lot like homosexual marriage. Unnatural behavior is self-defeating, that is, it can’t procreate, but results in extinction. Neither can it defend itself in a moral universe, not only because it is self-defeating, but also because the moral compass of man is the origin of its morality. What this means is this: man’s moral base has no more of a substantive foundation than his “I thinks.” What is moral today will be considered immoral tomorrow—by the same source.

In our freedom loving country we have liberty, but our liberties are eroded with people in political power who are more loyal to partisan parties than to anything originating with the Lord. No Christian should support such a way of thinking. Paul said in Romans, “Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them” (Romans 1:32, ESV). On a practical level, no Christian can escape their contribution to an immoral society who vote/support such behavior. What about in regards to eternity? RT

 

The Even-Handed Justice of Man (A Word to the Wise)

13 Friday May 2016

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

“A just weight and balance are the LORD’S: all the weights of the bag are his work. (Proverbs 16:11, NKJV). In this exhortation of the Holy Spirit, the king over his people is not one who is to sustain his own pleasures with corrupting influences. Instead, he lives by the standard that is of God. when issues need to be properly judged, the king is to have a standard that is even-handed and right. the only standard known to man that is that way ifs the standard that belongs to the Lord. Too often man gets in the way of himself as he tries to administer justice; the subjectivity of evaluating motives makes justice not even-handed at all! A prime example of this is secular progressivism/liberalism. There is no chance for justice to be rendered even-handedly across the board because the standard of measurement is always floating, changing and fluid. My friends, reject the ways of man (Proverbs 14:12) and accept the ways of the Lord. RT

Hedonism = Pleasure

22 Tuesday Sep 2015

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

The word atheist means “non-God;” when applied to a person, one does not believe in God. Atheism is a faith, an ideology that has swept through societies and corrupted the thinking of man with regard to his moral foundation. In a recent “twitter” discussion an atheist did not much like that which I wrote concerning atheism and its connection to hedonism. He failed to see and accept that each ideology has a consequence. In this case, a consequence to one’s moral behavior.

I don’t blame him. Hedonism has a connotation that is quite unpleasant to a practical person’s way of thinking.

When I asked him of his moral foundation and why he accepted it he replied that his moral compunction is associated with empathy. I do not remember that he gave me a reason why except to say that what is disagreeable to him is likely disagreeable to others. A rock-solid foundation, wouldn’t you say!

Hedonism is defined as the person who lives life seeking that which is pleasurable. The dictionary defines it as the doctrine that pleasure or happiness is the sole or chief good in life (Webster’s, p. 849). The word “pleasure” and “happiness” can have selfishness associated with it, but not necessarily so. In The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, there are two types of hedonism discussed, ethical hedonism and psychological hedonism. Ethical hedonism affirms that only pleasure is intrinsically desirable and only displeasure is intrinsically undesirable.

This definition in the philosophical dictionary is mighty vague, and the discussion to follow illustrates this. The word “pleasure” confuses what hedonism is. The word can have application in any area of life – to that which is totally selfish to that which is totally giving. Wherever (or in whatever area) one falls in the spectrum of understanding and applying the word “pleasure” to the life lived, the atheistic philosophy has as only the source man’s wisdom in determining what is right and wrong.

Great chaos that has produced!

Of course, with any moral foundation one has to choose to live in accordance with its tenets. For the atheist, the only tenet is that which he likes or dislikes, since his is the highest source of authority by which to measure anything. For the Christian, he also must make a choice, but his choice comes from a source greater than himself.

The Christian might have a similar pleasure to the atheist in giving to his fellowman, or he might be as selfish as the atheist is other matters. With regard to the Christian’s choice, he is measured by a higher authority of ethics. For the atheist, he is not. The Christian gives because of who the Lord is (the very essence and standard of what is good), while the atheist gives for some reason related to self. For the Christian, the rock-solid foundation of morality is in place, but for the atheist the only foundation in place is a fluid one. RT

 

The Moral Force of Atheism (Letter to Editor)

14 Thursday May 2015

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

There is nothing within atheism that warrants them to identify a moral wrong. When they assert that something is wrong in a moral context all they are really saying is “I think that is wrong, and you should to!” There is nothing more they can say. Thus, in the context of the Holocaust, the moral force of an atheist (agnostic, secularist) is strictly a subjective opinion. They cannot objectively sustain that Nazi Germany did anything morally wrong. This was brought out in Wallace Matson – Thomas Warren Debate on the existence of God (Tampa, 1978).

The tragedy of the Holocaust was recently, and vividly, brought out in the Monday issue of the paper (page A-7, 5.11.2015); in the story, we learned of a little boy’s struggle while in Europe during the Second World War. The heartache experienced and the moral outrage of evil deeds done by an evil people (Nazis) gets every thoughtful person to ponder why evil even exists. That it does is incontrovertible. Yet, while an atheist knows that it exist he (she) can’t tell anyone what evil really is, or why it exists. They can’t do this because they can’t identify a transcendent, objective good.

If atheists say that what Nazi Germany did was evil, be sure to ask them why they think it was evil. It is likely they will say something along this line: because it “harms” or “hurts” others. This is not a substantive answer because the necessary follow-up is: what makes “harm” or “hurting people” an evil? Ultimately, all an atheist (agnostic, secularist) will be able to say is because “I think it is.”

Evil can only be identified when it is placed alongside that which is good. Without a measuring standard of “good” all any one will be able to offer is a subjective opinion. With God, however, there is no subjective opinion belonging to man concerning what is good. That which Nazi Germany did was evil because the measuring standard of “good” (Matthew 22:34-40) shows it to be exactly that.

Submitted to JC-TC.com (5.11.2015)

Much at stake (Letter to editor)

30 Thursday Apr 2015

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

Letter to editor

What is at stake with regard to the issue of same-sex marriage before the United States Supreme Court? There is more at stake than is realized by some. In an Associated Press article by Mark Sherman, there is a summary of the constituent points concerning the issue before the Court. Those who support gay-marriage argue that states do not have “any valid reason” to prohibit marriage to same-sex couple because it is their “pursuit of happiness.” Moreover, the denial makes them (homosexuals) “second-class citizens of same-sex couples and their families.”

There are two replies to this. First, with regard to there being no valid reason to prohibit same-sex marriage, there is very much a valid reason. It is called morality! If there is an objective/transcendent standard of right and wrong (and I have and will continue to argue for such), then behavior contrary to that standard is immoral. On the other hand, in a society such as ours that currently exists, we live on the basis of no morality at all, or a morality that is relative to the subject. In effect, what is right and what is wrong is undetermined until the community codifies a standard that is strictly arbitrary to wants, wishes, and dislikes. This promotes moral chaos.

With such a philosophy in place, if one determines his own right or a wrong, the arbitrary approach to morality produces no morality at all. It is nothing more than a squeaky wheel getting grease!

Thus, this brings me to the second point of reply. The moniker “second-class” citizen is as substantive as submarine with a “screen-door” hatch! It is a sinking ship. This is nothing more than a made-up reply to gather sympathy from people.

Submitted to Decatur Herald-Review (4.27.2015)

Secular Morality (Letter to Editor)

19 Wednesday Nov 2014

Posted by in Atheism, Editor, Morality

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, ,

Recently, in the Mattoon Journal-Gazette, there were two atheistic letters to the editor that intended to address my contention that the moral code of an atheist or agnostic is strictly that of one’s personal standard. Consequently, I maintained, there is no objective or transcendent moral standard by which one can judge something thought, said, or done by another as wrong – except that someone thinks it to be wrong.

One man took such great exception to my letter that he said I was “flippant” and “straw-manning” my opponent’s position. Building a straw-man was hardly the case! After reading what he had to say a couple of times, he still offered nothing better than an “I think” (subjective) approach concerning a moral standard of right and wrong. This is no surprise because the source from which one moves in an “I think” approach is nothing more that one’s personal perspective – and it can’t be any other way. He admits as much when he said, “That is to say morality is, inherently, from man.” He wants to have objectivity, but anything that originates with man can be nothing of the sort!

One woman took exception, as she always does, to my remark that atheists have no moral code that is objective or transcendent of man. I previously wrote: “Atheism, as an ideology, is devoid of a moral code that can, or will, benefit man.” I further commented that an atheist has to adopt another moral standard and make it their own in order to judge something wrong (or right). She didn’t care much for this so she proceeds to lay out a moral code with four points, all dealing with the consequences of actions (toward self, others, groups, and other living things). That which she offered, however, is nothing more than her personal perspective or opinion. Why does one need to think and operate in this way? Is it because there is some compelling reason outside of man that says as much, or is it because there is something inside man that judges such? What makes it obligatory? What she argued for is this: the consequences of one’s action, related to “harm,” is one’s moral standard (or code). I suppose, then, since it is “harmful” to correct a child (from the child’s perspective at least), then discipline is immoral.