Satan: the latest to be misunderstood

You had to know this was coming. First Judas, now Satan.

No one is every really bad. They are simply "misunderstood." Leave it to academia to claim the Devil himself is a victim of a centuries old misunderstanding.

Professor Henry Ansgar Kelly, a medievalist professor from California, wants to reassess our image of Satan, who he says is the victim of unfair press and groundless aspersions.

“He’s a government heavy, whose main job is to test human beings and to accuse them of their misdeeds, but he is cynical and overzealous in performing his duties,” the professor says. “We can think of an unscrupulous and feared official investigator or prosecutor, like J. Edgar Hoover or Senator Joseph McCarthy.”

He is holding "Satan seminars" to help Lucifer's image. "Satan in the New Testament should be regarded as holding the equivalent of such positions as Prime Minister, or Attorney-General, or Head of MI5, or Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and as no more evil than many zealous holders of these positions here on Earth," said Kelly.

No wonder we can't call terrorists evil or condemn the murder of innocent civilians, you can't even talk bad about Satan without academia defending him.

Comments

[Louis]

Sounds like the Satan portrayed in the Book of Job. Of course, the Byronians Romantics had an even more indulgent view...

[Cineaste]

Satan is to God what the Titans were to Zeus, a foil. You must understand this first to appreciate what Professor Kelly is saying. Without Satan to blame everything bad on, Christians would have only God left to blame the ills of the world on. Christians can't have that, hence they put Lucifer in the story. Satan has an important role to play in the Christian mythology. There are really no forces of good or evil at play in the world. I think too many people confuse good and evil with morality, and their own personal sense of morality. Professor Kelly is correct in his assesment.

[Louis]

Who created Satan?

[seeker]

Who corrupted Satan?
Who corrupted man?
Who corrupted creation?

[Cineaste]

God?

[Aaron]

Louis,
1. God, but Satan was Lucifer first and was a good angel who went bad because he wanted to become God himself.

seeker,
1. himself, pride, sin
2. Satan, themselves, pride, sin
3. Satan, humanity, sin

I don't blame Satan for everything that goes bad, hence he is not "needed" for Christianity to work. I blame sin for what goes wrong - sin in my life, sin in your life, sin in Satan, etc.

Cineaste, I find it odd that you say that good and evil are not connected with morality. What is morality then if not the seperation of what is good from what is evil? How can you have morality in the absence of something good to strive for?

[Cineaste]

Aaron, not only am I saying they are not connected, I'm saying there is no such thing as good and evil forces at play in the world. Anything you think of as "evil" you are confusing with what you think of as immoral. Morality is your sense of right and wrong. Morality differs from person to person and therefore, is not an absolute. One's sense of right and wrong has no realation to evil as a personification, force or absolute. Do you understand what I am saying?

[Russell]

Cineaste,

You don't really believe that. If I walked up and sucker-punched you for no reason you'd soon realize it.

[Cineaste]

Yes, of course I would realize it. I would think you are an asshole for sucker punching me and would pound the crap out of you in retaliation. Was sucker punching me evil? Is there a difference between being a jerk and being evil? Yes!

[Aaron]

Cineaste, I understand it but I don't think you mean it.

Sorry to appeal to this, but it seems to be the only thing that is recognized by everyone - the Holocaust. Is that simply immoral from our standard, but not the Nazis. What gave us the right to do anything about it?

What about rape? is that moral for some people, but not for others?

As Russell pointed out, you would not like him to punch you. But what reason would you have to retaliate or call him a jerk? He is simply practicing his sense of morality. You have no right to challenge that if there is no evil, merely personal morals.

[Cineaste]

But what reason would you have to retaliate or call him a jerk?

Because he sucker punched me. He is practicing his sense of morality that conflicts with mine so I'll hit him back. I absolutely would not think of Russel as evil for hitting me though I might think of him as a drunken jerk.

...the Holocaust. Is that simply immoral from our standard, but not the Nazis.

Correct. It was not immoral in the Nazi view was it? It was immoral in our view wasn't it? Why is this so hard for people to grasp?

You have no right to challenge that if there is no evil, merely personal morals.

Why do you say I have no right? I do. Furthermore, you know I do. Evil does not exist, which is why Satan gets a bad rep according to Professor Kelly. He is a foil to God in the Christian mythology just as the Titans were a foil to the Greek Gods in Greek mythology.

[Russell]

Cineaste,

I don't mean to offend but you're speaking nonsense. I mean that literally.

Because he sucker punched me. He is practicing his sense of morality that conflicts with mine so I'll hit him back. I absolutely would not think of Russel as evil for hitting me though I might think of him as a drunken jerk.

And by what standard are claiming me to be a drunken jerk? Your authority for making that claim is no different than to claim that I am being evil. Both are universal standards. You contradict your own ideas in the span of a single sentence.

[Ryft Braeloch]

What is 'good' and 'evil' if these are not precisely moral expressions? You would argue that they nothing more than biographical statements about one's personal preferences? You would argue that molesting little children is not actually 'bad' in itself but, rather, is a morally neutral event which we individually judge according to what we happen to prefer ourselves? "[T]oo many people confuse good and evil with morality" for a reason: because they are exactly moral expressions.

[Cineaste]

I don't mean to offend but you're speaking nonsense.

It is not nonesense to hit you back if you hypothetically sucker punch me. Am I hitting you back because it was an evil act? NO! I am not. You may think I'm talking nonsense here but I think the same of what you are saying. I don't get it.

And by what standard are claiming me to be a drunken jerk?

By the standanrd that you just "hypothetically" sucker punched me. It's as plausible a reason as I can think of.

You contradict your own ideas in the span of a single sentence.

Where?

[Cineaste]

You would argue that molesting little children is not actually 'bad' in itself but, rather, is a morally neutral event which we individually judge according to what we happen to prefer ourselves?

I would not argue this at all. Child molestation is morally reprehensible in all the cultures I know of. However, this does not make child molestation "evil" in the sense that there are "evil forces" at play, as personified in Satan like Christians believe. I'm sorry, but I maintain that this "evil" in the sense that Christians perceive it, is nonexistant. Child molestation is immoral yes! I totally agree. That child molestation is evil, as in "Satan," no I don't. Such evil does not exist. This is I think, what Professor Kelly believes which is why his comments make perfect sense to me, that Satan fills a role because there are things in this world that happen which Christians can in no way hold GOD responsible for..

[Ryft Braeloch]

You said that child molestation is "morally reprehensible" in all the cultures you know of. If reprehensible here means "blameworthy" or "condemnable" then I would agree with you, but then I would also point at that this is exactly what "evil" means (in the context of Christianity, which is the theme of the post, Henry Kelly's book, and your criticisms). Evil is that which is the opposite of good, which means it is properly understood as a privation; insofar as 'cold' is a privation of 'heat', just so 'evil' is a privation of 'good'. While it is true that such things as child molestation are not evil "in the sense that there are 'evil forces' at play" (that is, we are not hapless puppets through which the personification of evil commits his acts), this does not somehow allow us to say that Satan is not himself evil. He is.

'Evil' and 'Satan' are not identicals, and no biblically consistent Christian believes they are. Although Satan is evil, evil is not Satan. Christianity has said the same thing for thousands of years: 'evil' is not a thing itself. It is a relational description; it describes a relationship between things but is not itself a thing. 'Good' and 'evil' are strictly moral terms; when we say that this thing is good or that thing is evil, we are making a moral pronouncement. Why is this important? Because if God is the Christian's ultimate ground of moral order—and he is—then these terms become relational descriptions, which means that a thing is determined to be 'good' by the degree of its relationship to God's righteous nature, notably expressed prescriptively through his law, and 'evil' becomes a privative term expressing any want of conformity with such. Evil is strictly a term which describes a privative relationship (i.e. consisting in the absence of something), whether it’s a privation from an original state of righteousness in communion with God (a condition of being which we call "original sin") or a privation from God’s holy law (acts of commission or omission which we call "actual sin").

"I'm sorry," you said, "but I maintain that this 'evil', in the sense that Christians perceive it, is nonexistant." Well I am not so sure you even understand the sense in which Christianity describes 'evil'.

"Satan fills a role," you asserted, "because there are things in this world that happen which Christians can in no way hold God responsible for." No one can hold God responsible for anything, if responsible means "liable to give an account," because there is no one to whom he is liable. God alone is the supreme Judge, only Law-Giver, and the very ground of moral order in the first place as the Sovereign of all creation. Man's laws determine legality, God's laws determine morality.

[Aaron]

You say child molestation is Immoral, but why? What standard do you appeal to to make that judgment? Is it purely your own? If so then you have no reason to force that standard on the child molester. He (or she) is doing something that is "moral" for them to do, if we hold that there is no standard that everyone should be held to.

You didn't answer my follow-up question about the Holocaust. If it was just a case of their morals being different from our morals, why did we have any right to stop it? Should we have stopped it? In your understanding, it was not immoral for them to kill millions of Jews, so why do anything about it? Who gave us the right to force our moral standard on them?

[Cineaste]

Ryft,

You said, "If reprehensible here means "blameworthy" or "condemnable" then I would agree with you, but then I would also point at that this is exactly what "evil" means (in the context of Christianity)" Christians believe that "evil" extends to supernatural beings, like Satan, who are outside the sphere of man's influence. This is the "evil" to which I refer that is nonexistent. If one removes man from the world, all morality/good/evil goes with him. All that is left is what we would label as "nature." It's the "evil" that is associated with man that Christians confuse with morality.

If God is the Christian's ultimate ground of moral order—and he is—then these terms (good/evil/morality) become relational descriptions, which means that a thing is determined to be 'good' by the degree of its relationship to God's righteous nature, notably expressed prescriptively through his law, and 'evil' becomes a privative term expressing any want of conformity with such.

Again, this is an example of why Christians confuse good/evil with morality. Christians maintain that God is the ultimate moral authority yet they, as fallible human beings, must interpret God's laws as they see them, and those laws have a lot of leeway when it comes to their interpretation. Eating shellfish for example, is not adhered to. Thou shall not kill (murder). What if its in war? What if it’s a capital punishment? Does it apply to humans only? I could go on. The plethora of Christian sects show that not even Christians themselves can agree on an interpretation of the bible. And Christians want to apply their interpretation of "God's law" as moral judgment on non Christians? Appealing to God as the source of pure and perfect good/evil/morality is invalid because all such appeals travel through a fallible, self interested middle man, mankind. Mankind is the true source of morality (a sense of right and wrong) and morality is open to interpretation. Many Christians are confused about this. They don't like the idea that morality is in the eye of the beholder, that the world is not black and white, it's shades of grey.

No one can hold God responsible for anything, if responsible means "liable to give an account," because there is no one to whom he is liable. God alone is the supreme Judge, only Law-Giver, and the very ground of moral order in the first place as the Sovereign of all creation. Man's laws determine legality, God's laws determine morality.

I totally disagree. I see Christians holding God responsible for occurrences all the time! Thank God for this. Thank God for that. If one gives God credit for things that happen, a form of accountability, then it stands to reason that people can also blame him. Oh, but lest we forget Christians can't lay blame (responsibility) at God's feet. How convenient we have the Devil. That is what he is there for.

Aaron,

In your understanding, it was not immoral for them to kill millions of Jews...

All I have to say is, you're lucky I'm not Jewish. What a stupid thing to say. Yes, I think the holocaust was immoral. Yes, I have my own standard of morality and believe it or not, so do you. Appealing to God as a source of morality is an illusion because of what I outlined above. Take the Japanese or the Swedes for example. These are largely secular societies with a large percentage of aetheists. Where do all these people get their sense of morality? Not the Christian God. Are you implying all these millions are immoral?

[Ryft Braeloch]

So you are NOT denying the existence of a moral order, but you ARE denying the existence of supernatural beings (regardless of whether they might be morally culpable or not). But when one has simply rejected a Christian belief, that rejection is not itself an effective criticism of it. If you are rejecting a Christian belief without presenting any reason for doing so, and without offering any sort of criticism of that Christian belief, the Christian has literally nothing before him to address. An argument that is not presented cannot be analyzed. But then, hidden arguments are easier to preserve.

"If one removes man from the world," you said, "all [morality] goes with him. All that is left is what we would label as 'nature'." This is an interesting 'ipse dixit' claim, quite frankly, for I thought man himself was a part of nature. I would think that someone who rejects the existence of all supernatural beings would claim that "all that is left is nature" whether man was left in the world or not! Perhaps you think some property of man is above nature. Or perhaps you had not realized what you were saying.

You said that "Christians maintain that God is the ultimate moral authority," but this is an ambiguous way to put it. When I see that, I begin to have visions of Socrates and Euthyphro talking to one another. You'll notice that I had said God is the Christian's "ultimate ground of moral order." This is a more accurate way to put it. It is God, in his sovereign holiness and righteousness, that is our ground of moral order. We do not say a thing is moral because God commands it, nor do we say that God himself is moral. Such statements fall prey to the Euthyphro dilemma (employed in assaults on the coherence of Christian theism). Morality is not an arbitrary function of God's power nor is it a part of some higher court to which God himself is subject. Bertrand Russel did not realize that the Euthyphro dilemma commits the bifurcation fallacy. There is a third option that critics of Christian theism nearly always miss, and it goes back to how I had phrased the matter.

An objective moral standard exists (this avoids the first horn of the dilemma), but this standard is not external to God; rather, it is internal to God (this avoids the second horn of the dilemma). As Gregory Koukl states, morality is grounded in the immutable nature of God, who is perfectly holy and righteous. His laws are not arbitrary whims but rooted in His holy and righteous nature. As Scott Rae said, "Morality is not grounded ultimately in God's commands but in His character, which then expresses itself in His commands" -- or as I had said previously, "a thing is determined to be 'good' by the degree of its relationship to God's righteous nature, notably expressed prescriptively through his law, and 'evil' becomes a privative term expressing any want of conformity with such."

The criticism you offered against this unfortunately fails, since your criticism addressed how we can know God's laws ("those laws have a lot of leeway when it comes to their interpretation"). Your skepticism here addresses an epistemic issue, which is a fine question but it misses the mark by a large margin. The certainty with which we can claim to know God's laws has nothing to do with the point that morality is grounded in God's immutable nature. The former is an epistemological issue, the latter is an ontological issue. Ergo, you have not shown how the Christian's grounding of moral order is "invalid" at all.

"Mankind is the true source of morality." If so, then child molestation is not inherently evil. According to this reasoning, we have arbitrarily defined it that way and could easily define it differently if we so wished.

You keep talking about how Christians confuse "good" and "evil" with morality. Perhaps you could offer the readers of this blog a couple of examples. Please demonstrate

(1) something that is "moral" but "evil", and
(2) something that is "immoral" but "good".

----------
P.S. First of all, just because you have heard Christians thank God, or blame him, does not mean God is held accountable for things. For instance, those Christians you have heard could simply be confused, holding God accountable to them when in fact they are accountable to him. Secondly, X giving credit to Y for some thing does not make Y accountable to X. If my wife gives me a cup of coffee and I thank her, does that mean she is liable to account for her actions? That is absurd.

[Cineaste]

So you are NOT denying the existence of a moral order but you ARE denying the existence of supernatural beings

No, of course I'm not denying the existence of a moral order. The moral order is that which we (mankind) make. It is dynamic and not absolute. It changes over the centuries and it differs from culture to culture, religion to religion.

If you are rejecting a Christian belief without presenting any reason for doing so, and without offering any sort of criticism of that Christian belief, the Christian has literally nothing before him to address.

Ah! You're asking why I don't believe in Satan. Easy, for the same reason I don't believe in supernatural beings like Santa Clause, Zeus and the bogyman. Their existence is incredible. I hope this is clearly presented.

Perhaps you think some property of man is above nature. Or perhaps you had not realized what you were saying.

Don't you think some of the properties of man are above nature? I do. Where does morality exist in nature? (I'm not referring to instinct but morality) I don't think it does. Morality is a human construct. Morality is not natural it's artificial. I'll post the definition so I can be a bit clearer.

ar•ti•fi•cial Audio pronunciation of "artificial" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ärt-fshl)
adj.

1.
1. Made by humans; produced rather than natural.
2. Brought about or caused by sociopolitical or other human-generated forces or influences: set up artificial barriers against women and minorities; an artificial economic boom.
2. Made in imitation of something natural; simulated: artificial teeth.
3. Not genuine or natural: an artificial smile.

Cloning, space travel, the Iliad, morality: these are some of the properties of man that are "above nature" as you say, meaning they do not occur naturally. Yes, we are mortal physical beings with bodies that are grounded in nature but I think we are called human beings because we are capable of behavior beyond other animals. Is self awareness natural? I don't know.

A thing is determined to be 'good' by the degree of its relationship to God's righteous nature, notably expressed prescriptively through his law, and 'evil' becomes a privative term expressing any want of conformity with such.

Perhaps I do not understand you fully here but this sounds like nonsense. Perhaps it's because I am assuming you mean the Christian God when you say "God." What about people who lived before Christianity like the Egyptians? What about people who have no "relationship to God's righteous nature?" Are you implying that these people have no morality because they don't have a relation to the Christian God? I think non Christians have a very strong sense of morality without having any relationship with the Christian God’s "righteousness." This indicates to me that God is extraneous in relation to morality. Billions have lived moral happy lives without Him. As I said before though, morality is dynamic.

"Mankind is the true source of morality." If so, then child molestation is not inherently evil. According to this reasoning, we have arbitrarily defined it that way and could easily define it differently if we so wished.

Child molestation is not inherently evil, correct. Child molestation is bad. Child molestation is immoral. Child molestation is disgusting. Evil though is illusionary in the sense that it exists outside of man. The immorality/morality of child molestation is not so arbitrary or easily defined as you purport. If you think it is, try and change it. You will find all cultures, Christian and non Christian alike will revile you. If you argue that child molestation has always been considered immoral I point you to the Greeks since you have cited Greek thinkers. How times and morality have changed in Western Civilization.

You keep talking about how Christians confuse "good" and "evil" with morality. Perhaps you could offer the readers of this blog a couple of examples. Please demonstrate

(1) something that is "moral" but "evil", and
(2) something that is "immoral" but "good".

I'll use the above as a demonstration of how Christians are confusing good and evil with morality. Good and evil do not exist therefore, 1. there is nothing evil 2. there is nothing good. I want to be clear. When I say "Good" and "Evil" I am referring to them as external forces outside of man, which is what Christians believe they are as personified in God and Satan. There is immoral and moral when it comes to human relations. There is nothing intrinsically "Good" or "Evil" in them. Mores/morality are determined by man, by society and have NOTHING to do with the Christian God.

If my wife gives me a cup of coffee and I thank her, does that mean she is liable to account for her actions? That is absurd.

Absurd? Your wife making you coffee as a metaphor for holding God accountable? Alright, I'll go with it. If she makes you a bad tasting cup of coffee you would hold her accountable and tell her right? Why does this taste so bad? Did you make it differently? You held her accountable for her making you coffee as shown by your thanks to her. You would also hold her accountable if the coffee was rancid wouldn't you?

[seeker]

Mores/morality are determined by man, by society and have NOTHING to do with the Christian God.
I understand this point, but I think that morality and good/evil do exist as objective qualities, and are not merely created by us.

Appealing to a higher law, as the founders did when they said "we hold these [moral, ethical] truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights", they were talking of objective morality which can be seen in the nature of what is made (not to be consfused with "seen in nature"), originating from God.

This is by far the most reasonable and real view of morality, and a human-based one is not only faulty, it depends on the wishy washiness of man, rather than man using reason and recognizing the immutable laws of nature and nature's God.

[Cineaste]

"we hold these [moral, ethical] truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights"

I understand, but you should continue...

— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The founding fathers of the United States knew that morality is Human based and faulty, this is why they included the provision for the people to abolish the government if it could no longer provide life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The most blatant contradiction to "All men are created equal" and it also smacks of hypocrisy, is that Thomas Jefferson was a slave holder. At one time, slavery was morally acceptable despite slaves "being endowed by their creator" with "unalienable" rights. Is this not an example of how morality is not objective at all but rather VERY subjective?

I would also point out that for a moral that was "originating from God," it sure took a long time (the beginning of human history to July 4, 1776) for mankind to recognize it. China is now in the year 4703 which is relatively close to the same "age" as all of creation, (sorry, I couldn't resist) and only in the last couple of hundred years these God given moralities have become social mores? No, the morality has changed over time and morality will continue to change based upon society, upon mankind. As distressing as the "wishy washiness" of morality may be to Christians, I can honestly say that there is just too much that has happened in history to prove morality is subjective and mutable. Seeker, when you mention the "immutable laws" of nature, morality is not one of these. The immutable laws of nature are gravity, entropy, thermodynamics, evolution, etc... :)

[seeker]

The founding fathers of the United States knew that morality is Human based and faulty,
You've missed the point entirely. They found humans faulty, not just human morality. And therefore, they based the origin of rights not in man, but in the Creator. And, they called them self-evident, i.e. objecgtively true to the honest observer.

The most blatant contradiction to "All men are created equal" and it also smacks of hypocrisy, is that Thomas Jefferson was a slave holder.
Yes, well, they recognized the principle, and there were those who knew that meant abolition, but to push for abolition at that time would have been suicide to the young nation, which was barely holding together as it was. In fact, Jefferson's first draft contained a statement condemning the slave trade.

Your ad hominem attack on Jefferson is just a red herring - the fact is, the document clearly displays the idea that human rights iriginate in the objective laws of nature and nature's God.

I would also point out that for a moral that was "originating from God," it sure took a long time
There are a couple of reasons for this. First, nations who defied the God of Creation after being dispersed (at the tower of Babel) introduced slavery as one of their own choices of sin.

Second, and we've had this discussion before, slavery in the OT is usually a type of indentured servanthood, a type of debtor's payment. Sure, you can cherry pick passages about taking slaves from conquered land (Canaan), but the point is, the mainstays of morality (the "big sins") are not merely a subjective human construct - they are objective laws that we must learn from observing reality. Hence, phrases like "we hold these truths to be self evident."

The great men who formed our country recognized this, and those who reject it are mistaken in thinking that morality is subjective.

[Cineaste]

They found humans faulty, not just human morality.

This is correct. Morality is subjective because humans practice it!

Your ad hominem attack on Jefferson is just a red herring

You misunderstand. I am not attacking Jefferson. I think he was a great man. In fact, Jefferson and I have the SAME view of morality!

If we did a good act merely from the love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? It is idle to say, as some do, that no such thing exists. We have the same evidence of the fact as of most of those we act on, to wit: their own affirmations, and their reasonings in support of them. I have observed, indeed, generally, that while in Protestant countries the defections from the Platonic Christianity of the priests is to Deism, in Catholic countries they are to Atheism. Diderot, D'Alembert, D'Holbach, Condorcet, are known to have been among the most virtuous of men. Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than love of God.

-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814, using the term atheist to mean one who lacks a god belief, not one who is without morals, as was a common use of the term in Jefferson's day

Seeker, game, set and match on Jefferson's views of subjective morality. Jefferson says everything I have said but much better, much more directly, so even Christians may understand the concept of morality having "some other foundation than love of God."

[Ryan]

I've been comtemplating these very ideas lately and have been somewhat disappointed in what I am beginning to think. I had always held the standard Christian ideals and morals. But the more I understand human and animal psychology and life as a whole the more I tend to think that everything we're taught as "right" "wrong" "moral" and "immoral" are just human ideas that have been developed to better our chances of what every other species on this planet has and always will pursuse PERSONAL PLEASURE. I will admit it is definatley not what I wanted to find out but I honestly feel this has a good chance of being true. Ill be back tomorrow to give you all some of the reasons why I feel this to be true.

[seeker]

This is correct. Morality is subjective because humans practice it!
False! This is like saying "science is subjective becuase humans practice it." Moral laws are true, and the just like phyisical laws, the more we line up with them, the better we will be.

Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than love of God.
Actually, you might use this argument to argue that morality is possible apart from xianity. I would actually agree with that, and I would add that morality under false piety (i.e. outward religion) is often even worse.

But Jefferson is in no way arguing for subjective morality here, only that it is possible to determine OBJECTIVE morality without scripture. Hence the Jeffersonian phrase I keep repeating, "we hold these [objective] truths to be self-evident." If they were subjective, they would not be self-evident at all.

I totally agree with this position. So I'd say you are out of bounds on your volley.

The value of scripture in determing morality, however, is two fold. First, common wisdeom about morality (discoverable by anyone, even the atheist) is collected in such works of wisdom, gathered over centuries. We ignore such collections to our peril.

Second, in some areas, we are more prone to decieve ourselves, or be deceived, about the moral danger or value of various activities, often becuause their fruits are so long in coming that we think they are not related (like societal disintegration resulting from the undermining of the family unit, or destruction of the environment from slow contamination).

The fact that the bible calls out such slow-to-fruition sins as sinful is actually very useful - it stands as a testament to timeless truths even if one's modern society tells us that things like greed, promiscuity or other sexual sins, or disregard for the Divine, are actually acceptable and harmless.

[Ryan]

I think alot of the points you make SEEKER are quite valid. I especially connected with the reference to the bible identifying alow to fruition "sins" However I've been thinking that we only call these "wrongful acts" SINS and EVIL becaues we woudn't want them to happen to ourselves. Thus we make up rules/guidelines that we all agree to uphold so that we can rest assure that projected harm shall never come upon us or our family or people important to us. Compassion, sadness, and grief, are an undeniable feelings that occur in varying degrees as a result of the element of nature and nurture. I really question the human's advanced feeling of compassion in comparsion to that of any other known animal, is merely just a another evolved survival train that has allowed man flourish.

[seeker]

I really question the human's advanced feeling of compassion in comparsion to that of any other known animal, is merely just a another evolved survival train that has allowed man flourish.
In some ways, we most certainly are similar to animals. However, the ways in which we are different are critical and real. Without such distinctions, we would conclude such things as
- a human's life is not worth more than an animal's (so we could justify homicide, or invalidate eating animals)
- human society should merely operate on the same principles as, say, chimp society
- personal gain and succeeding over others, in many situations, would be better than mercy or cooperation - I mean, we are getting rid of the weaker anyway (eugenics)
- modifying nature, or taking an animal's habitat, might be argued immoral, since we are not of more worth than they

Such erroneous conclusions are not necessarily the only ones you could draw from a "man only develops morality for survival" argument, but, similar to evolutionary thinking, it pretty much does end up there. But I'm sure there are those who would disagree ;)

[Ryan]

What criteria are you using to conclude that there is even such a thing of and inate " worth " of life. I don't think there is such a thing as one life being intrinsically worth more than another. Worth is a subjective value. Why is mercy always better than personal success? The danger is that when you are a playing ball in a society that has drawn up a rule book heavily based on scripture saying that those who follow these rules will be rewarded and those that dont' shall not. It would only make sense any self serving animal would choose not to associate themselves with those who break the rules. Thus if no one would associate it with a particulae being his or her basic animal needs like companionship food, sex, could not be met. And that is why it would make sense for any selfserving person to play by the rules adopetd by the majority.

[Ryan]

By the way, it was not that long ago that I felt vary similare to what you do. When I would read things like that which I have been posting, I would be disgusted that anyone could be so "heartless". I thought they must just not have been given the proper love and education. This for certain is not the case with me however as I have been EXTREMELY fortunate with the deck I've been dealt. But I have always been a very strong person, and far less squeamish about talking about what is TRUE and what is REALITY. I think most for a myriad of reason aren't willing to walk down this road. I can understand why, for just as my deep down gut instinc had suggested, what you find at the end is not at all what you had hoped for.

[Ryft Braeloch]

(I beg you to forgive my lapse in responding. I had some domestic issues to attend to and was unable to invest time into my online activities.)

Where we find agreement is in recognizing the existence of a moral order, but almost everyone recognizes its existence. Although Christianity can sufficiently explain this phenomenon but Naturalism cannot (it is impossible to derive a prescriptive from a descriptive), recognizing the existence of a moral order is not the issue. The issue regards its grounding.

Christianity grounds moral order in the nature of God and thereby can affirm its being an objective moral order—that which is independent of either a particular human mind or any collection thereof. That is, this objective moral order would exist whether or not mankind did (e.g. prior to creation, morally culpable angels existed). Furthermore, you had alleged that this line of reasoning is invalid but pointedly failed to demonstrate its alleged invalidity.

You ground moral order in the whims of mankind and thereby can affirm its being only a subjective moral order—that which is dependent upon a particular human mind or a collection thereof. That is, this subjective moral order would cease to exist if mankind did (e.g. there is neither a God nor angels).

Ergo, you have not escaped my initial criticism: moral expressions are "nothing more than biographical statements about one's personal preferences" (or a collection of persons that share similar preferences which one would call a culture). In other words, "moral" is a complete misnomer and should not even exist in your worldview. Under your model, all so-called moral expressions are, ultimately, merely descriptives or expressions of 'is'. But moral expressions are prescriptives or expressions of 'ought'. If moral order is something contrived by mankind, relativistic and differs from culture to culture, then what we have is merely a descriptive of what this culture prefers and that one prefers. A descriptive is not a prescriptive, nor is it possible to derive the latter from the former.

"Ah! You're asking why I don't believe in Satan." No, I am not. As interesting as that discussion might be, we were actually talking about evil "in the sense that Christians perceive it." I described the Christian view of moral order, how its grounded, and the consequent definitions of 'good' and 'evil' that necessarily follow. Your rejection of supernatural beings (e.g. God) does not amount to a criticism of this view. What you find intellectually acceptable has no relevance to the propositions I had presented. It is logic which deals with the formal principles, methods, and criteria of validity of inference, reasoning and knowledge—not you.

"I do [think some of the properties of man are above nature]," you said. "Where does morality exist in nature? I don't think it does. Morality is a human construct. Morality is not natural, it's artificial." That would mean morality is abstract—"existing only in the mind" or "not representing external reality or the objects of nature"—so it does not equate to "above nature" (especially if you are a reductionist). Furthermore, morality is not a property of man. A property of an object is some intrinsic or extrinsic quality of that object: John is tall, John is mortal, John is Fred's brother, etc.; these are properties. Morality is not a property of man, insofar as it does not describe who or what someone is. ('Moral' could be a property, however, as in "John is moral.") Cloning, space travel, writing? Mark, these are activities of man, not properties of man.

"I think non-Christians have a very strong sense of morality without having any relationship with the Christian God's 'righteousness'." That may be so, but as I said above, recognizing the existence of a moral order is not the issue. The issue regards its grounding. Yes, Egyptians and Wiccans and Atheists, etc., all can recognize a moral order (and Christianity explains why). Can they explain its existence, however? Probably, but it will exhibit neither coherence nor rationality. If they appeal to anything other than an objective basis, it is nothing more than a relativistic descriptive—yet morality is prescriptive.

"Billions have lived moral happy lives without [God]." Perhaps under your definition of "moral" (which is merely descriptive). Under the Christian conception of it, however, none have lived moral lives without God—by definition. And, again, you have not supported your charge that this definition is invalid.

"Child molestation is not inherently evil, correct. Child molestation is bad. Child molestation is immoral. Child molestation is disgusting." You have missed the force of my argument. Try it this way. Child molestation is bad, okay, but is it inherently bad? Is it inherently immoral? Your answer, if it's to be consistent with your definition of 'moral', has to be, "No, child molestation is not bad in itself. It is a completely neutral event, to which we ascribe our subjective preferences and concerns."

"Good and evil do not exist therefore, 1. there is nothing evil 2. there is nothing good." This is a fantastic demonstration of really, really bad reasoning. This is fallacious question-begging in its most brutal form. I hope the readers can understand my rejection of logically fallacious arguments.

"When I say 'Good' and 'Evil', I am referring to them as external forces outside of man." Then you are tackling a position that is different from, and weaker than, the actual Christian position. This is called a Strawman. Your fallacies are piling up.

Again I shall ask: You keep talking about how Christians confuse "good" and "evil" with morality. Perhaps you could offer the readers of this blog a couple of examples. Please demonstrate

(1) something that is "moral" but "evil", and
(2) something that is "immoral" but "good".

P.S. If you knew what 'supernatural' meant, your supercilious remarks would not include Santa Claus in that class of being.

[Cineaste]

Although Christianity can sufficiently explain this phenomenon (existence of a moral order) but Naturalism cannot... recognizing the existence of a moral order is not the issue. The issue regards its grounding.

The Christian explanation of "moral order" and it's "grounding": "Morality is not grounded ultimately in God's commands but in His character, which then expresses itself in His commands" is no more valid than my saying: Morality is not grounded ultimately in Zeus' commands but in his character..." You see? This just totally falls apart unless you believe in Zeus. The reasons for believing in Zeus were, morally, just as valid to the Greeks as the reasons for Christians believing in a Christian God. For me to find this valid I would need to presuppose the existence of Zeus or the Christian God. Does this demonstrate this line of thinking is invalid? Regarding naturalism and "moral order," it's unfair to say Naturalism can't explain "moral order" because its really a philosophical issue.

Your rejection of supernatural beings (e.g. God) does not amount to a criticism of this view. What you find intellectually acceptable has no relevance to the propositions I had presented. It is logic which deals with the formal principles, methods, and criteria of validity of inference, reasoning and knowledge—not you.

What I find intellectually acceptable is relevant because you have a "Christian" logic based upon Christian assumptions and faith. Your assuming "a thing is determined to be 'good' by the degree of its relationship to God's righteous nature, notably expressed prescriptively through his law, and 'evil' becomes a privative term expressing any want of conformity with such." This assumption made is nonsense for the same reasons I note above about Zeus. One needs to presuppose a belief in Zeus or the Christian God for your arguments to be valid.

Objective moral order would exist whether or not mankind did (e.g. prior to creation, morally culpable angels existed).

Do you literally mean angels or "the better angels of our nature" as Lincoln said? If you literally mean angels existed, I don't believe in angels so this line of reasoning makes no sense to me. It's like arguing "How many angles can dance on the head of a pin?"

If moral order is something contrived by mankind, relativistic and differs from culture to culture, then what we have is merely a descriptive of what this culture prefers and that one prefers.

The "prescriptive" comes from us and not the supernatural. I have spoken to Aaron and Seeker at length about this for it seems to be at the crux of our conversation. I would like to refer you to "The problem of Evil" thread if I could Sir.

Yes, Egyptians and Wiccans and Atheists, etc., all can recognize a moral order (and Christianity explains why). Can they explain its existence, however? Probably, but it will exhibit neither coherence nor rationality. If they appeal to anything other than an objective basis, it is nothing more than a relativistic descriptive—yet morality is prescriptive.

Christianity's explanation is just as incoherent and irrational as any other explanation of moral order. I do think of morality as something that "ought" and not something that "is," meaning morality is not descriptive. The question is where does the "prescriptive" originate. You hold that it’s a supernatural source, your God's righteousness. I don't, I hold that the prescriptive originates in man and is subject to all our shortcomings and strengths. It's a humanist view and not a religious one.

Cloning, space travel, writing? Mark, these are activities of man, not properties of man.

Your right, I should have said metaphysical properties relating to man's activities.

"Billions have lived moral happy lives without [God]." Perhaps under your definition of "moral" (which is merely descriptive).

No, it's perscriptive as well, just a different source. Morality comes from within us according to our personal convictions. It comes from outside of us through our family, our friends the ones we love, our cultures. In short, we get our human morality from humans.

Under the Christian conception of it, however, none have lived moral lives without God—by definition.

Until these people accept God, are they bound for hell? Without God, by definition they are immoral? If so, I find this rational crazy unless one pre-supposes the existence of a supernatural being, which I don't.

Child molestation is bad, okay, but is it inherently bad? Is it inherently immoral? Your answer, if it's to be consistent with your definition of 'moral', has to be, "No, child molestation is not bad in itself. It is a completely neutral event, to which we ascribe our subjective preferences and concerns."

Again, the Greeks practiced child molestation and it was morally acceptable in their culture. Child molestation is not morally acceptable to me or our culture yet we still admire the Greeks as the forebearers of all Western Civilization, Democracy, and Philosophy. Were the Greeks an "inherently immoral" people because of this? I don't think so, do you though? Would you say that child molestation is immoral in every time, culture and circumstance? Your answer, if it's to be consistent with your definition of 'moral', has to be, "Yes, child molestation is bad in itself. Therefore you would have to condemn the ancient Greeks as an immoral people but by whose standards? Yours? Gods?

This is a fantastic demonstration of really, really bad reasoning. This is fallacious question-begging in its most brutal form. I hope the readers can understand my rejection of logically fallacious arguments.

It would help if I understood your problem here instead of just appealing to readers.

Then you are tackling a position that is different from, and weaker than, the actual Christian position. This is called a Strawman. Your fallacies are piling up.

The "actual Christian position" of good and evil and man would be helpful in this case then, yes? Please provide it. Without it, I am doing my best to piece together what you are trying to convey. So my understanding of the Christian notion of "Good" and "Evil" as things existing outside of man is "fallacious", "illogical" and "a straw man", alright fine. Why?

Again I shall ask: You keep talking about how Christians confuse "good" and "evil" with morality. Perhaps you could offer the readers of this blog a couple of examples.

I'll wait to hear your response before I answer. Keep in mind though that I think morality and God have nothing to do with each other because I don't believe in supernatural beings like God, Zeus, Vishnu, Allah, or Anubis. Any answer I give will reflect this. Honestly, I don’t see any difference in the supernatural properties of the Gods vs. Santa, they both fit the definition: unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal. The only difference is degree of reverence.

[seeker]

Without God, by definition they are immoral?
No, you are confusing morality with righteousness. You may have exemplary morals, but you have still sinned and fallen short of the moral standard. And xian theology says that all are GUILTY, whether they are moral or not. And that ALL can be saved from the justice they deserve through faith in Christ. AND they can live the redemptive life here that they are designed for.

[seeker]

I don't believe in supernatural beings like God, Zeus, Vishnu, Allah, or Anubis.
I agree with you that God is not necessary for establishing ethics or morals. However, I do think that there are objective moral principles that are "self-evident" and inexorable, built into the universe, regardless of what you think the source of the building is.

The question of the existence and nature of God are related to the question of absolutes in morality, but not a necessary assumption, I don't think. It is the objective reality of these that forms the basis of effective morality, and this reality is observable to all, without special revelation, but as Romans 1 says, it is "revealed in creation."

[Ryft Braeloch]

You said that my grounding moral order in God's nature is no more valid than you grounding it in Zeus' nature. This is true if, and only if, both "God" and "Zeus" are actually one and the same being. Let me explain.

If Zeus has a nature different from God's nature, then this is not necessarily true; one argument can be more valid than the other. For instance, if God is necessary being but Zeus is contingent being, then grounding moral order in God is more valid than grounding it in Zeus. However—and this is important—if Zeus has the same nature as God, then we are dealing with an identical (cf. Leibniz’s law of the Indiscernability of Identicals). If everything true for X is also true for Y, then X and Y are actually one and the same being. If everything true for "Cineaste" is also true for "Mark," then they are simply two names for one being. Then, and only then, would it be just as valid to ground it in God as it would be to ground it in Zeus.

Furthermore, my argument does not totally fall apart just because you reject God. My argument stands or falls under its own merit. Your incredulity neither determines nor affects the validity of my argument. Whether or not my conclusion logically follows from my premises is what determines validity, and this can be evaluated even by someone who rejects the truth of the premises. "One needs to presuppose a belief in Zeus or the Christian God for your arguments to be valid," you claimed. In actuality, this is wrong. For you to find my argument valid, the conclusion would have to logically follow from the premises. If it does, the argument is valid. (There is a world of difference between "logical" and "empirical." Logic, not empiricism, determines validity.) This is why I had said, "Your rejection of supernatural beings does not amount to a criticism of this view. What you find intellectually acceptable has no relevance to the propositions I had presented."

"It's unfair to say Naturalism can't explain 'moral order'," you claimed. It might seem "unfair" to you but it is nevertheless true. Naturalism is philosophically committed to the sense-perceptible natural order—that which is empirical, or has extension or form in space. Consequently, Naturalism backs itself into a reductionist corner and can speak only in descriptives.

Whether or not you intellectually accept the existence of God and angels should have no impact on whether an argument makes sense to you. For instance, even though I reject the existence of leprechauns, the following argument nevertheless makes sense to me:

1. All leprechauns are green;
2. Bill is a leprechaun;
3. Therefore, Bill is green.

(I will write more tomorrow, so perhaps I could convince you to wait before responding. Thank you.)

[Cineaste]

(I will write more tomorrow, so perhaps I could convince you to wait before responding. Thank you.)

Okay, but I'm chomping at the bit.

[Ryft Braeloch]

"I do think of morality as something that 'ought' and not something that 'is'," you said, "meaning morality is not descriptive." That does not follow. Just because you recognize a moral order—and most everyone does—that does not somehow magically turn your descriptive into a prescriptive. Although you recognize a moral order and you properly understand that morality deals with 'oughts', your worldview ultimately fails you because it does not permit you to derive any 'oughts' from nature. Your innate moral compass did not come from your worldview; it is an innate sense that your worldview fails to account for. If you look at this forest here, nothing about it provides you with any oughts. If you look at that planetary system there, nothing about it provides you with any oughts. Even if you look at this human society over here, nothing about that society will provide you with any oughts.

The only thing you can do is describe these things. With specific regard to that society, all you can say is how that society conducts itself, what it will tolerate or not tolerate, what pleases it or offends it—yet these are all descriptives! Perhaps that society thinks it is 'wrong' or 'bad' to willfully hurt an innocent individual, but that merely describes their sentimental disposition about such behavior. It tells us that such behavior is wrong, which is descriptive, but it does not tell us why such behavior is wrong. The mere fact that they have feelings on a subject may tell us something about their sentimental disposition, but it tells us nothing about the subject itself. Perhaps they feel that people ought to be protective of innocent individuals, but where does this ought come from? Where, in the world of nature, do we find properties to which 'oughts' correspond? What would such a natural phenomenon even look like? We can certainly describe an event (such as "A tortures B") in physical terms. We can even describe our emotional reaction to such an event (although this describes only our own biochemical states; it says nothing about the event itself). As Russell Manion put it, "We will not find in nature any property that corresponds to a moral concept [an 'ought']. Therefore, moral concepts are grounded either outside nature or not at all." No event is inherently wrong, you admitted; no thing is bad in itself. It is a completely neutral event, to which we ascribe our subjective preferences and concerns.

"Until these people accept God, are they bound for hell?" Yes.

"Without God, by definition they are immoral?" Yes—although they recognize a moral order and try to live moral lives.

"If so, I find this rationale crazy unless one presupposes the existence of a supernatural being, which I don't." The Christian model accounts for even that.

"Would you say that child molestation is immoral in every time, culture and circumstance?" Yes, moral order is as eternal and unchangeable as the nature in which it is grounded. Under the Christian model we can be assured that what is 'wrong' will always remain 'wrong'.

"It would help if I understood your problem here [q.v. "This is a fantastic demonstration of really, really bad reasoning."] instead of just appealing to readers." You had argued: "Good and evil do not exist. Therefore, there is nothing evil and there is nothing good." Your argument began with a conclusion, and then ended with a conclusion that agreed with the conclusion you began with. This argument question-begged so brutally there were no premises to be found anywhere. It was all conclusions.

"The 'actual Christian position' of good and evil and man would be helpful in this case then, yes? Please provide it." I already did, in my second and third posts. That's why I took the time to elaborate it.

"So my understanding of the Christian notion of 'Good' and 'Evil' as things existing outside of man is 'fallacious' . . . Alright, fine: Why?" See my second post, dated August 18. In that post I explained the nature of good and evil, showing that they are not things. "Christianity has said the same thing for thousands of years: 'evil' is not a thing itself. It is a relational description; it describes a relationship between things but is not itself a thing."

Again I shall ask: You keep talking about how Christians confuse "good" and "evil" with morality. Perhaps you could offer the readers of this blog a couple of examples. Please demonstrate

(1) something that is "moral" but "evil", and
(2) something that is "immoral" but "good".

NOTE: You can certainly claim that "Christianity's explanation is just as incoherent and irrational," but I will expect you to support such a conclusion. For the rational mind, conclusions do not magically appear out of thin air; they result from a series of premises and are subject to the test of validity. Conclusions that are presented on nothing more than one's say-so (Lt. ipse dixit), or commit a fallacy of some form (e.g. petitio principii), carry no intellectual currency and are typically dismissed by the critical thinker.

[Cineaste]

Ryft, response to your first post...

Furthermore, my argument does not totally fall apart just because you reject God. My argument stands or falls under its own merit. Your incredulity neither determines nor affects the validity of my argument.

Whether or not you intellectually accept the existence of God and angels should have no impact on whether an argument makes sense to you. For instance, even though I reject the existence of leprechauns, the following argument nevertheless makes sense to me:

1. All leprechauns are green;
2. Bill is a leprechaun;
3. Therefore, Bill is green.

This is why I had said, "Your rejection of supernatural beings does not amount to a criticism of this view. What you find intellectually acceptable has no relevance to the propositions I had presented."

The logic of this argument is valid but what I find invalid about it is the premise "All leprechauns are green." While some may believe Leprechauns exist and that they are indeed green, I don't. So, it makes no sense for me to engage in this line of thought. Without a sound premise, the argument falls apart. You would have to provide some evidence for the existence of leprechauns. But you already knew this I'm sure. I won't ask you to provide evidence of God's existence because that would be about as fair as you asking me to provide evidence of God's non existence. I will say though that the non-existence of supernatural beings is more credible to my thinking. Leprechauns are supernatural yet I would venture that most Christians deny their existence. Most Christians probably deny the tooth fairy, Santa, Vishnu, Zeus, etc. Yet they choose to believe in their specific supernatural being, the Christian God. Why does the Christian God have more validity for his existence than say Zeus or Allah? For that matter, why does the Christian God have more validity for his existence than Santa?

To get back to the subject of morality as grounded in man as opposed to "God's righteousness;" I can prove that humans exist for my premise but you would have to take it as a matter of faith that the Christian God exists to prove yours.

You said that my grounding moral order in God's nature is no more valid than you grounding it in Zeus' nature. This is true if, and only if, both "God" and "Zeus" are actually one and the same being.

Ryft, this still falls prey to the premise being unsound, unless you believe in God and Zeus, though your explanation looks valid to me. For me, arguing whether or not Zeus and the Christian God are one and the same or if one is contingent and the other necessary is like arguing are leprechauns and Pixies one and the same? It makes no sense for me to pursue either argument.

"It's unfair to say Naturalism can't explain 'moral order'," you claimed. It might seem "unfair" to you but it is nevertheless true. Naturalism is philosophically committed to the sense-perceptible natural order—that which is empirical, or has extension or form in space. Consequently, Naturalism backs itself into a reductionist corner and can speak only in descriptives.

1. If Philosophy is...

phi‧los‧o‧phy  /fɪˈlɒsəfi/ - the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.

2. And Naturalism is...

nat‧u‧ral‧ism  /ˈnætʃərəˌlɪzəm, ˈnætʃrə-/ -

Philosophy.
a. the view of the world that takes account only of natural elements and forces, excluding the supernatural or spiritual.
b. the belief that all phenomena are covered by laws of science and that all teleological explanations are therefore without value.

3. Then wouldn't the question of "morality" fit into the realm of "truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct" better than "takes account only of natural elements and forces?" Morality is 1. "Conformity to the rules of right conduct" and Philosophy is the "investigation" of "conduct" among other things.

[Ryft Braeloch]

I am composing a response to your Part 1 above, but I will not publish anything until you've published the other part (which, I am sure, will be tomorrow.

[Cineaste]

Ryft, response to your second post...

Just because you recognize a moral order—and most everyone does—that does not somehow magically turn your descriptive into a prescriptive.

Repeating here...

The question is where does the "prescriptive" originate. You hold that it’s a supernatural source, your God's righteousness. I don't, I hold that the prescriptive originates in man and is subject to all our shortcomings and strengths. It's a humanist view and not a religious one.

Your innate moral compass did not come from your worldview; it is an innate sense that your worldview fails to account for.

My moral compass is not innate. Morality is learned.

Although you recognize a moral order and you properly understand that morality deals with 'oughts', your worldview ultimately fails you because it does not permit you to derive any 'oughts' from nature...

If you look at this forest here, nothing about it provides you with any oughts. If you look at that planetary system there, nothing about it provides you with any oughts. Even if you look at this human society over here, nothing about that society will provide you with any oughts.

If you look at this fire there, and you stick your hand in it, you quickly learn you "ought" not to stick your hand in the fire! If you’re hunting that animal in the forest over there, and you see that teamwork equates to more success in hunting, you learn you "ought" to share the kill with your partner. These beneficial behaviors are incorporated into a society’s mores over time. Behaviors harmful to that society like murder, rape, child molestation, tax fraud, adultery, etc. tend to be considered immoral.

A baby has no innate sense of morality, it's essentially tabula rasa. As that baby grows, it develops a sense of morality from its parents, family, friends and culture. This is why a baby raised in a Christian culture by Christian parents will probably grow up to be a Christian. If the baby comes to a realization that Christianity is false, then that baby (person) changes it's morality to reflect the realization that Christianity is false. So, the prescriptive comes from the person, from within, though influenced by society and milieu. If Christian morality was innate, everyone everywhere, every time would be Christian, or at least born as Christians.

As Russell Manion put it, "We will not find in nature any property that corresponds to a moral concept [an 'ought'].

Tell Russell that "nature" teaches it is "wrong" and not "right" to stick your hand in a fire. If he tries, he will quickly learn he "ought" not to do it. It is from simple lessons like this that more advanced morality comes from like ones values and sense of virtue. Oh, I burned my hand in the fire. Not only did it hurt but now I can't use it and the injury makes me a liability to other people.

"Until these people accept God, are they bound for hell?" Yes.

"Without God, by definition they are immoral?" Yes—although they recognize a moral order and try to live moral lives.

This sounds like nonsense to me but hey, it's the Christian model so I won't, and probably can't, argue with it.

My view: what you were before you were born you will be again when your dead. Nothing. Oblivion for us all. Nihilistic, but it's just a stronger motivation to cherish the life you have and be happy. Only your deeds can give you immortality.

Under the Christian model we can be assured that what is 'wrong' will always remain 'wrong'.

Which is untrue because "killing" is not always wrong. There are some cases where killing is wrong and others where killing is right (war, capital punishment), indicating that killing is subjective.

Your argument began with a conclusion, and then ended with a conclusion that agreed with the conclusion you began with. This argument question-begged so brutally there were no premises to be found anywhere. It was all conclusions.

Hmmm, kind of like your argument that starts with the premise that God exists?

"Christianity has said the same thing for thousands of years: 'evil' is not a thing itself. It is a relational description; it describes a relationship between things but is not itself a thing."

Okay, so "evil" describes a relationship between things." You have said that evil is related to it's relationship with the Christian God and His righteousness? So, with this definition, if there is no God it follows there is no evil because without God, there can be no relationship to God. Okay...

Again I shall ask: You keep talking about how Christians confuse "good" and "evil" with morality. Perhaps you could offer the readers of this blog a couple of examples. Please demonstrate

(1) something that is "moral" but "evil", and
(2) something that is "immoral" but "good".

1. Answer: Mankind
2. Answer: Mankind

Take mankind out of the equation. Assume man does not and never did exist. What would you consider as being "evil" in the world? What would be "objectively immoral" without man? The answer is nothing. I guess from a Christian perspective, it would be like Eden before Adam and Eve; unless, you count Lucifer Morningstar as evil right? But we can't because, as you so kindly pointed out to me, Christians believe evil is not a "thing" (2. some entity, object, or creature that is not or cannot be specifically designated or precisely described) rather, it's a relationship. So, introduce mankind back into the picture and we again have morality and immorality, indicating that morality is a human construct. Human morality comes from humans, which means it’s subjective. Christians confuse their subjective sense of morality with what they call "objective" or "absolute" morality.

You can certainly claim that "Christianity's explanation is just as incoherent and irrational," but I will expect you to support such a conclusion.

Christianity, like many other religions before and since, is VERY likely a man made construct to explain the unknowable. Because it's main document, the Bible, was written according to science 2000 years ago, there are many conflicts and contradictions with the science of today (I can list a multitude if you like). It's not limited to science either. There are passages in the bible that seem to contradict themselves and it takes a lot of "jumping through hoops" for Christians to explain them. If the document's origins were divine and perfect, I think it reasonable to assume that it's content and facts would be perfect as well. They are not. This indicates human intervention at least and I think, entirely written by humans. I know this must be a common argument against Christianity and no doubt there is a canned response already formulated but now I have supported for my claim, "Christianity's explanation is just as incoherent and irrational as any other explanation of moral order."

[Ryft Braeloch]

THEORY OF ETHICS

"My moral compass is not innate. Morality is learned." I am so glad you said that. This could really help in bringing my point across to you. Where is morality learned from? One's parents, you would presumably assert, and other teachers and mentors. But where did they learn it from? From people who taught them and so on, into a lengthy regression. But where does it stop? Eventually you have to submit that something in the natural world produced moral concepts. What is that natural thing? Manion's comment has not yet been vitiated.

Your 'fire' example does not work, and for one rather good reason: Although it is irrational to burn your hand, it is not immoral. It will hurt, but is hurting yourself bad or evil? You can teach your child not to stick their hand in fire because it will hurt, but this does not tell them that it is bad or evil to hurt themselves. The reason your example does not work is because you are confusing rational oughts with moral oughts. There are several types of oughts: from rational ("You should affirm the law of non-contradiction") to aesthetic ("You should wear this shirt with that skirt") to moral ("You should protect children") to etiquette ("You should not eat peas with a knife"), and so on. We are not dealing with rational oughts, nor with the oughts of etiquette or law or aesthetics, etc. Our discussion is restricted to the subject of morality. Since there is a difference between something being 'legal' and being 'moral' (e.g. the Nazi's treatment of Jews), since one can be 'irrational' without being 'immoral' (e.g. sticking your hand in a fire)—all of which proves that these are not identicals—we must avoid confusing or conflating them.

"If Christian morality was innate, everyone everywhere, every time would be Christian, or at least born as Christians." This line of thinking works only if Christianity is strictly a moral program. But this is not what Christianity is. Although Christianity provides a definition and explanation of moral order, it is far more than just that. Therefore, what would be proper to state is, "If Christian morality was innate, then everyone would intrinsically perceive the same things as being 'right' or 'wrong'." And we find that this is, in fact, the case—in everyone whose mind is functioning properly ('proper function' is itself another discussion; q.v. Alvin Plantinga's Warrant and Proper Function).

"[That under the Christian model we can be assured that what is 'wrong' will always remain 'wrong'] is untrue because 'killing' is not always wrong. There are some cases where killing is wrong and others where killing is right (war, capital punishment), indicating that killing is subjective." Killing is not 'wrong' according to Christianity. That is a fallacious strawman that is employed far too often. Moral order is grounded in God's nature, not in his commands. Any argument to the contrary addesses a position that is different from, and weaker than, the actual Christian position, rendering such an argument fallacious. Furthmore, the sixth commandment itself does not say that killing is wrong; it says that ratsach (Hebrew) is wrong: intentional murder without cause. And, as I said, it will always remain wrong because moral order is as eternal and unchangeable as the nature in which it is grounded.

"You have said that evil is related to it's relationship with the Christian God and His righteousness? So, with this definition, if there is no God it follows there is no evil because without God, there can be no relationship to God." The situation is even more desperate: Without God, there is nothing. If the universe did not exist, God would nevertheless exist. If God did not exist, nothing would exist. But yes, morality is unintelligible without reference to God, as every non-theistic theory of ethics continues to prove.

I asked you to offer the readers and myself an example of "something that is 'moral' but 'evil'," and your example was "mankind." I think you might have failed to discern the precision of my question. I did not ask you for an example of something that is both moral and evil (which mankind would be an appropriate response to, for man is at times moral and at times evil); I asked for something that is 'moral' but 'evil' (and 'immoral' but 'good'). The molestation of a little child is evil and immoral, because 'evil' is precisely a moral judgment. What all of this means is, unless you can show me something that is moral and, at the same time and in the same respect, evil, then Christians do not in fact confuse good and evil with morality—"because they [good and evil] are exactly moral expressions."

So if you could, please, offer the readers and myself an example of:

1. something that is at once both moral and, at the same time and in the same respect, evil
2. something that is at once both immoral and, at the same time and in the same respect, good

"Take mankind out of the equation. Assume man does not and never did exist. What would you consider as being 'evil' in the world?" One of my earlier posts already answered this: "A thing is determined to be 'good' by the degree of its relationship to God's righteous nature, notably expressed prescriptively through his law, and 'evil' becomes a privative term expressing any want of conformity with such. Evil is strictly a term which describes a privative relationship (i.e. consisting in the absence of something)," whether it’s a privation from an original state of righteousness in communion with God or a privation from God’s holy law. That is what I would consider as being 'evil' in the world. If we remove mankind from the picture, is there anything in the world that could manifest this? Yes, Satan and those angels who fell along with him from their first estate. Perhaps you want to remove even these from the picture, so that no beings exist anywhere except God. Would there be anything 'evil' in the world then? No. Evil finds expression only in creatures who by nature and deed can fall from an original state of righteousness in communion with God or exhibit a privation from God’s holy law.

"...unless, you count Lucifer Morningstar as evil right? But we can't because, as you so kindly pointed out to me, Christians believe evil is not a 'thing'." We can, in fact, consider Satan as evil—and we do, because he is. There is a distinction here which you sincerely need to apprehend, if you hope to understand the Christian's position. I will express it as succinctly as I can: Satan is evil morally, but he is not evil ontologically. Put another way, as I had written in an earlier post, "Satan is evil, but evil is not Satan."

You had claimed that Christianity's explanation of moral order "is just as incoherent and irrational as any other explanation" (including your own?) but you still have yet to support this claim. Your critique of the Bible's internal and external consistency (a critique which is quite easily undermined) failed as support for your claim because the coherence and authenticity of the Bible is a separate issue from Christianity's explanation of moral order. For instance, it is possible for a text to demonstrate incoherence about every other subject but demonstrate a rigidly coherent and rational explanation of one particular subject. Furthermore, to think that identifying and critiquing the origin of a position somehow refutes the position itself commits the genetic fallacy. As Bruce N. Waller points out, "It is vitally important to separate argument sources . . . from argument content. In argument, the medium is not the message" (Critical Thinking: Consider the Verdict, 1998).

And for some reason, you will only say things that are true on your own presuppositions, while refusing to engage the presuppositions of the competing view. This will suffer from the fallacy of begging the question. But even worse, it is sheer bigotry; like Chesterton said, "Bigotry is an incapacity to conceive seriously the alternative to a proposition," and this is quite true.

[Ryft Braeloch]

MISCELLANEOUS POINTS

"The logic of this argument is valid," you said, "but what I find invalid about it is the premise 'All leprechauns are green'." It would seem, then, that our conflict centers around terminology. I have made a study of philosophy for many years so the terms I am employing are being used in very precise ways. When I use the term "valid" I am using it in a strictly logical sense. In other words, when I say that an argument is valid, what I mean is that the conclusion follows logically from the premises. Nothing is being asserted about either the premises or conclusion being 'true'—that would be a different discussion. Therefore, when you claim that my argument is invalid, I think you mean that the conclusion does not follow logically from the premises.

So then perhaps what you mean to say is this: "The logic of this argument is valid, but I think one of the premises does not correspond with reality." And it's fine if that is what you mean. You do not need to accept the truth of the premises to agree that the argument is valid. If the conclusion logically follows from the premises, then you must admit the argument is valid. This is why I said that an argument can be evaluated for validity "even by someone who rejects the truth of the premises."

"Why does the Christian God have more validity for his existence than, say, Zeus or Allah?" I assure you there are a vast number of reasons for this; there are as many reasons for it as there are gods alleged to exist. With regard to your question, it is a simple matter of taking the description of Allah, for example, and evaluating it for internal and external consistency. If they inescapably suffer from a lack of internal consistency or possess self-contradicting characteristics, their existence is less valid than God's. Sometimes it is made very easy, by the adherents admitting straight out that their deities are mythological, or by their admitting that their god is nothing more than the cosmos in which we live (i.e. they have deified nature, which remains nature despite their reverence), and so forth.

As far as Leibniz's law of the Indiscernability of Identicals goes, it seems you missed my point entirely. I'm not sure what else I could say that has not already been said. The point is that your statement was false, and I demonstrated exactly how. If Zeus has a nature different from God's nature, then one argument can certainly be more valid than the other. Only if "Zeus" and "God" were actually one and the same being would it be every bit as valid to ground it in God as it would be to ground it in Zeus. (Remember that I am using "valid" in a strict sense.)

"Wouldn't the question of 'morality' fit into the realm of [philosophy] better than [Naturalism]?" Yes, it would seem easier to talk philosophically about morality in its own right than it is to try and account for morality from a Naturalist worldview. However, the issue before us regards grounding moral order; that is, it's very difficult to talk intelligibly about morality if we have not defined it. On one hand there is how Christianity defines morality, and on the other hand how you define morality; and the question becomes, "Which worldview is able to properly define, account for, and explain the moral order we all innately perceive?" The question you have to consider for yourself is whether or not your worldview can account for the moral order you innately perceive. You know you got it; you know most everyone else does to. So how did it get there? Christianity can account not only for how it got there but it can also define and describe the nature of morality. Naturalism cannot do any of these things. For the naturalist to talk about morality, he has to first steal intellectual currency from Christian theism.

"What you were before you were born you will be again when your dead: Nothing; oblivion for us all . . . Only your deeds can give you immortality." It is strange that someone with this view of death would have any concern at all for immortality of any form. Why would you care at all how your deeds are perceived after you are dead? You're dead, in a state of oblivion and nothingness. If there is some form of life after death from this world, then I could see how it would matter that "your deeds can give you immortality." Otherwise, who cares?

"Hmmm, kind of like your argument that starts with the premise that God exists?" Nowhere in my writings will you find God's existence being both a premise and the conclusion. Although my arguments presuppose God's existence, none of them assume his existence to prove his existence. Your argument, however, viciously begged the question ("Good and evil do not exist. Therefore, there is nothing evil and there is nothing good").

[Cineaste]

You didn't respond to the last part of this exchange (abbreviated). Could you please?

I see Christians holding God responsible for occurrences all the time! Thank God for this. Thank God for that. If one gives God credit for things that happen, a form of accountability, then it stands to reason that people can also blame him. -Cineaste

If my wife gives me a cup of coffee and I thank her, does that mean she is liable to account for her actions? That is absurd. -Ryft

Absurd? Your wife making you coffee as a metaphor for holding God accountable? Alright, I'll go with it. If she makes you a bad tasting cup of coffee you would hold her accountable and tell her right? Why does this taste so bad? Did you make it differently? You held her accountable for her making you coffee as shown by your thanks to her. You would also hold her accountable if the coffee was rancid wouldn't you? -Cineaste

--------------------------------------------------------

"We will not find in nature any property that corresponds to a moral concept [an 'ought'].

Where is morality learned from? ... Your 'fire' example does not work, and for one rather good reason: Although it is irrational to burn your hand, it is not immoral.

Read beyond the first sentence, the rest should make it clear...

Repeating here…

If you look at this fire there, and you stick your hand in it, you quickly learn you "ought" not to stick your hand in the fire! If you’re hunting that animal in the forest over there, and you see that teamwork equates to more success in hunting, you learn you "ought" to share the kill with your partner. These beneficial behaviors are incorporated into a society’s mores over time. Behaviors harmful to that society like murder, rape, child molestation, tax fraud, adultery, etc. tend to be considered immoral...

Tell Russell (Manion) that "nature" teaches it is "wrong" and not "right" to stick your hand in a fire. If he tries, he will quickly learn he "ought" not to do it. It is from simple lessons like this that more advanced morality comes from like ones values and sense of virtue. Oh, I burned my hand in the fire. Not only did it hurt but now I can't use it and the injury makes me a liability to other people.

Manion's comment has not yet been vitiated.

Who are you trying to convince? I’ve emphasized the "moral" parts for you.

"If Christian morality was innate, then everyone would intrinsically perceive the same things as being 'right' or 'wrong'." And we find that this is, in fact, the case—in everyone whose mind is functioning properly -Ryft

It’s not the case all. Morality is not innate, it’s learned. Essentially morality is one’s sense of “right” vs. “wrong,” and what do we use to determine what is right from what is wrong? Our minds tell us what is right and what is wrong. Saying morality is innate is like saying your “gut” tells you something is right or wrong. Your actually confusing our “gut” telling you with your “brain” telling you. Furthermore, I perceive different things as being “right” or “wrong” than you; obviously morality varies from person to person, place to place, and time to time.

Furthmore, the sixth commandment itself does not say that killing is wrong; it says that ratsach (Hebrew) is wrong: intentional murder without cause.

What intentional murder has ever been committed without some kind of cause? You can say the cause was unjust, insufficient, insane, etc. but no cause at all? There is always a cause associated with an effect. Furthermore, whenever someone identifies a cause for killing/murdering/ratsach, whatever you call it, they are passing a value judgment on the murderer's actions, their subjective morality.

The situation is even more desperate: Without God, there is nothing. If the universe did not exist, God would nevertheless exist. If God did not exist, nothing would exist.

Well, you must be wrong because we’re, in fact, here.

The molestation of a little child is evil and immoral, because 'evil' is precisely a moral judgment.

I disagree; the molestation of a little child is immoral only. I have already told you this. "Evil" in your mind, is a relationship to God. Using your definition of evil, we have established that without the Christian God, evil does not exist. Well, I don’t believe in the Christian God so it follows, I don’t believe in “evil” either. This also means that there are billions of others who also don’t believe in “evil” according to your own definition of “evil.” These must be the people with “improperly functioning minds” you mentioned?

1. something that is at once both moral and, at the same time and in the same respect, evil [immoral]
2. something that is at once both immoral and, at the same time and in the same respect, good [moral]

You reworded the question into a contradiction and you know it. I’ll wager you thought it was a contradiction before but my answer of “mankind” was perfectly appropriate for the way you had it worded previously. I’ve answered this question twice already, once with an invalid argument, and once with a perfectly legitimate response for the question as it was worded. That you didn’t word your own question precisely enough is your own fault. I’m finished playing your word game. Isn’t it time you explain the point of this charade?

Perhaps you want to remove even these from the picture, so that no beings exist anywhere except God.

I can prove human beings exist but you can't prove God exists any more than I can prove leprechauns or the tooth fairy exist. This is why your argument, "A thing is determined to be 'good' by the degree of its relationship to God's righteous nature, notably expressed prescriptively through his law, and 'evil' becomes a privative term expressing any want of conformity with such. Evil is strictly a term which describes a privative relationship (i.e. consisting in the absence of something)" is like your "green leprechauns argument." It's unsound unless you provide evidence for leprechauns or God existing.

The coherence and authenticity of the Bible is a separate issue from Christianity's explanation of moral order.

They have the same source and it's the validity of the source which I am critiquing. Christians believe that the source of moral order is divine, perfect. My arguments show that the bible is written by man like any explanation of moral order would be. As such, it is rational and coherent only insofar as man can make it so. In other words, just like my explanation of "moral order" is not perfect, neither is yours or Christianities’ explanation. In this regard, it's just as "incoherent and irrational as any other explanation."

And for some reason, you will only say things that are true on your own presuppositions, while refusing to engage the presuppositions of the competing view. This will suffer from the fallacy of begging the question. But even worse, it is sheer bigotry; like Chesterton said, "Bigotry is an incapacity to conceive seriously the alternative to a proposition," and this is quite true.

I can turn this around and say it's true for you as well, like when you use "God exists" as the premise of your arguments. The "Christian model" is, in fact, a matter of faith. When reason is pitted against faith, faith cannot be moved by reason. Faith is a belief not based on proof and so, no amount of proof will convince the truly faithful. Basically, no matter how good my arguments are, no matter what the evidence is, I am never going to convince you that the Christian God does not exist. That’s bigotry and hypocrisy. Conversely, as an agnostic, one can convince me there is a supreme being.

--------------------------------------------------------

MISCELLANEOUS POINTS - response

Therefore, when you claim that my argument is invalid, I think you mean that the conclusion does not follow logically from the premises.

I claimed your premise was invalid...

The logic of this argument is valid but what I find invalid about it is the premise "All leprechauns are green." While some may believe Leprechauns exist and that they are indeed green, I don't. So, it makes no sense for me to engage in this line of thought. Without a sound premise, the argument falls apart. You would have to provide some evidence for the existence of leprechauns. -Cineaste

If "unsound" is a better word to describe this, then your argument is "unsound."

"Why does the Christian God have more validity for his existence than, say, Zeus or Allah?" I assure you there are a vast number of reasons for this; there are as many reasons for it as there are gods alleged to exist.

Ryft, please look at this link. It is an honest question I have about Christianity. It really does an excellent job of putting this point into perspective...
Other People's Religions

The question you have to consider for yourself is whether or not your worldview can account for the moral order you innately perceive.

Yes, it does account for it and I've provided examples. While my worldview is grounded in reality yours is grounded on faith. Why is believing in Santa and less valid than believing in the Christian God?

If Zeus has a nature different from God's nature, then one argument can certainly be more valid than the other. Only if "Zeus" and "God" were actually one and the same being would it be every bit as valid to ground it in God as it would be to ground it in Zeus. (Remember that I am using "valid" in a strict sense.)

If leprechauns have a different nature from pixies, then one argument can certainly be more valid than the other. Only if "leprechauns" and "pixies" were actually one and the same being would it be every bit as valid to ground it (morality) in leprechauns as it would be to ground it in pixies. (Remember that I am using "valid" in a strict sense.

Do you now see why your argument is not even worth considering though it's perfectly valid?

Although my arguments presuppose God's existence, none of them assume his existence to prove his existence.

They are still unsound though.

It is strange that someone with this view of death would have any concern at all for immortality of any form. Why would you care at all how your deeds are perceived after you are dead? You're dead, in a state of oblivion and nothingness. If there is some form of life after death from this world, then I could see how it would matter that "your deeds can give you immortality." Otherwise, who cares?

David, forget everything else I have said above because this is the only question that matters. Here is a link to my site that has the best answer I can provide you. If you are genuine, if you sincerely want to know, watch Ikiru. I hope you are not just being glib.

[seeker]

Thank God for that. If one gives God credit for things that happen, a form of accountability, then it stands to reason that people can also blame him. -Cineaste

Actually, I think you are being logical here, but I think overly simplistic and only partly correct.

It is clear from scripture that God meets out punishment, and can be 'blamed' for some bad things. However, we often attribute good things to God that are merely fruits of our own actions - same with bad.

However, does the fact that God allows or takes some actions that we consider 'bad' make God bad?

[Cineaste]

However, does the fact that God allows or takes some actions that we consider 'bad' make God bad?

Well, I'll try to look at this from a Christian perspective. I guess I would feel that God and His actions are inscrutable so my opinion of what is "good" and "bad" would be inconsequential. My existence compared to God's and the angels would be nothing. What purpose could we possibly have in life compared to God's own purpose? I would probably have the feeling that I was living in a universe God set in motion with laws and then left to chance. Is this just my nihilism raising it's ugly head?

I think I would still be questing of answers but within the framework of Christianity. I am sure I would be reading more Peter Abelard, for example. As Abelard puts it, I and others would be asking for,

"...reasons they could understand than for mere words, saying that it was futile to utter words which the intellect could not possibly follow, that nothing could be believed unless it could first be understood, and that it was absurd for anyone to preach to others a thing which neither he himself nor those whom he sought to teach could comprehend."

Peter quotes St. Augustine in the prologue to Sic et Non to convey this very point,

"For what is the purpose in speech that the intellect of the listener does not follow, since there is no reason for speaking at all if the listeners for whose understanding we are speaking do not understand what we say? Whoever teaches, therefore, should avoid all words that do not teach."

To express my feeling cinematically, I would feel like Joel in "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind..."

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind revolves around two quotes. The first is from Alexander Pope's "Eloisa to Abelard," in which the poet takes on the voice of a young woman at war (as all of Pope's protagonists seem to be on some level) between feelings of love and religiosity:

How happy is the blameless Vestal's lot!
The world forgetting, by the world forgot.
Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind!
Each pray'r accepted, and each wish resign'd.y

The second is from Nietsche's Beyond Good and Evil, Part VII: "Blessed are the forgetful: for they shall have done with their stupidities too."

Both passages are quoted by Dunst's Mary in the film, and both speak to an idea of bliss as well as a blueprint for morality and identity--the question raised the extent to which experience and memory feed not only our personality but also, as Kaufman appears to suggest, our emotions. It's love as predestination (predestined for doom or ecstasy, it makes no difference), and a moment in which Joel's remembered self asks his dream lover what to do when their illusory time is so limited ("enjoy it" is the answer) cuts deep to either the despair of love lost or the anticipation of its inevitability. When I met my wife, I felt like I'd known her forever--my memories of before we met are all tinged with confusion as to where she was or the certainty that she was there somehow. And in our darkest moments, the truth that I'd do it all over again in a heartbeat despite the pain of those moments is an emotional verity examined by Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. With the poetry of a train station its departure point, the picture is fascinating and powerfully affecting--I'm haunted by its ability to formulate the impossible complexity of the will to love to the screen.

-Walter Chaw

I can appreciate your sincerity, Mark (and, by the way, I really appreciate your candor in this discussion), but I can assure you that I did not miss anything in your post. Even with the help of your 'hunting' example, which I surely absorbed, your 'fire' example still does not work because it has not escaped the critique I leveled against it. Your example demonstrated a rational ought, but no one is questioning rational oughts. The subject is morality, not rationality. These are two entirely separate areas of philosophical study (Epistemology, and Ethics). As I said, because it's possible to be irrational without being immoral, it is evident they are not related. You are probably itching to respond already but keep reading.

Your view, if I have understood you, is that moral oughts evolved out of rational oughts. But it is one thing to state your case, which you did, and quite another to make it. To state that moral oughts evolved out of rational oughts is not an argument, Mark—especially when my critique, which could have served as a catalyst for making your case, was summarily dismissed without the slightest comment. It is a very simple thing for someone to make an assertion, as you know, but it is not a rational argument. I'm sure if someone asserted "God exists," you would not find yourself intellectually compelled by it, so I find it a little odd that you would employ mere assertions.

I know you have "emphasized the moral parts" for me, but it was done through question-begging ipse dixit. This will not do, rationally speaking. I am looking for an argument, not an assertion, and your conclusion is missing its argument. You began with "Rational oughts," and then concluded "Therefore, moral oughts." No rational argument is made by one premise followed by a conclusion. "You ought not stick your hand in the fire" is a rational ought, while "You ought to share the kill with your partner" is a moral ought. Rational oughts are not being questioned here. The latter, a moral ought, is precisely the question here, and it will not do to beg the question.

"If Christian morality was innate, then everyone would intrinsically perceive the same things as being 'right' or 'wrong'." And although you disagreed, nevertheless I continue to argue that this is found to be the case, at least in those whose minds are functioning properly. And I will elaborate a little more here. Not only does everyday experience demonstrate this but our very laws are predicated upon this empirically verifiable fact. (Anyone with the necessary funds can travel around the world and verify that life is valued anywhere one goes, whether Bankok or London or Toronto or Canberra. This does not prove the Christian model, of course, but it demonstrates the model's external consistency.) Unless it can be demonstrated that her mind was not functioning properly at the time (insanity plea), a woman accused of murder is rightly regarded as knowing the difference between right and wrong—like everyone else whose minds are functioning properly. No one has ever been acquitted of murder because their attorney successfully argued that 'right' and 'wrong' is subjectively defined and everyone's different.

Against this you merely assert, "It's not the case all," and then continue by re-stating, still without the slightest support, your assertion that "morality is not innate, it's learned" (while ignoring the critique I leveled against this 'learned' angle). Obviously this assertion, too, remains rationally uncompelling for me. What I find interesting, however, is your statement that moral concepts are the product of mundane neurological activity, that somehow the deterministic firing of our synaptic pathways gives us moral concepts ("Our minds tell us what is right and what is wrong").

Of course, on this view 'moral' is an utterly meaningless term, as far as ethics go; it is simply a term t