It always amazes me that people think Marriage is a crazy idea and sex has nothing to do with a faithful committed relationship. For many this is just old fashioned or the dogmatic myth of religion imposing its laws on us to rob us of fun and enjoyment. But the serious truth is unless our generation wakes up society is over, that being a safe loving caring faithful society. Where love is a choice, not a feeling.
With the rise of modernism, which denies spiritual life, sex has no necessary purpose or significance. Individuals use sex however they choose, and what they choose does not matter to anyone else. Sex is strictly a personal choice and the only thing everyone must except is that everyone has the right to have sex regardless of whether or not he or she is married. For them sex justifies marriage, marriage does not justify sex. Sex is actually for these people nothing special. It is just a commodity one consumes without creating or assuming anything beyond the immediate experience. I mean if you think you’re here by chance, just an evolved wild beast, why not live like they do, fulfilling every sexual desire.
Cant the world see that some thing is wrong, sex is every where, free and for all. The United States Census in 2000 showed that two-parent families now represent less than 25 percent of all households in America, down from 45 percent as recently as 1960. The divorce rate has doubled and the percentage of people getting married at all has dropped lower than ever before, says Professor Daniel Heimbach.
Dr. Heimbach in his book “True Sexual Morality” also says,
“The rate of illegitimacy (births to unmarried women) rose by more than 500 percent. But while this rise in illegitimate births is terrible, the actual rise in illegitimate pregnancy has been at least two to three times higher, because 80 percent of abortions in America are performed on women who are not married.”
So in a way not getting married is promoting the killing of the unborn.
When you reject true sexual morality and think that every view has no more value than any other does, one is free to live how they like. But in time society will collapse.
Lets look at the spiral effect from Dr. Heimbach book,
1. Biblical marriage, man and women, sex in marriage.
2.Sexual morality.
3. Sex without consequences.
4. Sex without commitments.
5. Sex in any form.
6. Threatens sanctity of procreation and the sanctity of marriage.
7. Threatens sanctity of life, no family units,
8. Destroys respect for life, for self, for others, for community, for truth, for authority and for accountability.
9. Weakens laws, government, and family.
10. Leads to family brake down, divorce, unwed single parenting, cohabitation, undisciplined children, teen pregnancy, pornography, rape, abuse, abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, domestic partnerships, prostitution, and gender role confusion.
11. Leads to crime, drugs, murder, suicide, riots, truancy, violence, poverty, litigiousness, and economic weakness.
12. Leads to eventual social collapse.
There has been a great shift from thinking sexual discipline is a moral solution, to thinking sexual discipline is a moral problem. There has been a shift from thinking sex is a privilege reserved for people committed to certain goals, to thinking every one should act like animals in the wild.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Who is Your Hero ?
Every one in society looks for a role model to follow. We do this because we are part off a world we did not create, but find ourselves a part off. We seek to be accepted and be part of other people’s lives to gain understanding and love. But who is your hero?
I mean who ever is your role model is the person you are going to copy. The problem with society once it casted God of his Throne in their imagination is that there is no perfect standard above our own desires and wants. So we make laws to justify our evil desires or make rules to make our lives more sufficient. For example why not make prostitution legal, so that people can get what they want on a tap with no commitments. Why not let girls earn money this way, there only getting abused and letting their whole understanding of faithfulness and true love be destroyed before their eyes. For them sex is just a lust to be fed when ever, how ever, nothing scarred or meaningful. Lets try another example Why not make it legal for euthanasia or abortion. Never mind killing innocent people, as long as the burden is off us, all is good. This is why we need a perfect law above the hearts of man, so that we don’t make rules to fit our sick natures.
The hero you follow is the model you will shape society with. It’s sad that many parents these days are not good role models for their children. In fact some children act more normal than their parents. But their parent’s actions will shape them and their actions. A broken family will likely produce a broken kid. If parents can’t show a decent example or act as a normal functioning moral person, where are the children of today supposed to go to understand their place in this world and know how one should act. Should they go looking for our great role models from Hollywood, who have all the frame and money, but cant even keep a marriage together or say no to drugs. Just driven with lust and frame. What about the music world, should we all be indoctrinated with Gangster life styles, the dream of money, sex and beautiful women, but in reality just guns and violence. Or should our role models come from a different genre of music where women just sell their songs by lust and flesh, making them out to be sex objects for any one who likes the song. Why not tease, and then pull away, it only drive’s people to be sex addicts, rapists or Pedo’s, because sex has been trashed. Or should we seek some where else for a hero for society. Maybe Jesus the one people think is so old fashion and out of touch with reality should be our role model. He could reform society with ease.
But we believe we can make our own role models according to our likes and feelings, we don’t need God. We believe everything is ok as long as you don’t hurt anyone to the best of your definition of hurt and to the best of your knowledge. Oh we believe in sex before, during and after marriage. We believe in the therapy of sin, that adultery is fun, that sodomy is ok, that taboo’s are taboo.
We believe that everything is getting better despite evidence to the contrary. We believe there something in horoscopes UFO’s and bent spoons. Jesus was a good man just like Buddha, Mohammed and ourselves. He was a good teacher although we think his morals are bad. We believe that man is essentially good it’s just his behavior that lets him down. This is the fault of society. Society is the fault of conditions. Conditions are the fault of society.
We believe that each man must find the truth that is right for him. Reality will adapt accordingly. The universe will adjust. History will alter. We believe there is no absolute truth, excepting the truth that there are no absolute truths. We believe what’s selected is average, what’s average is normal, what’s normal is good. We believe morality evolved by chance determined by our genes, we desire it, so it’s right. we reject any idea of a correct way to function accroding to a designer, we just sleep with any thing that shows a response.
This is the nonsense that we have to put up with when one refuses to acknowledge God and his ways. Be careful who your role model is?
I mean who ever is your role model is the person you are going to copy. The problem with society once it casted God of his Throne in their imagination is that there is no perfect standard above our own desires and wants. So we make laws to justify our evil desires or make rules to make our lives more sufficient. For example why not make prostitution legal, so that people can get what they want on a tap with no commitments. Why not let girls earn money this way, there only getting abused and letting their whole understanding of faithfulness and true love be destroyed before their eyes. For them sex is just a lust to be fed when ever, how ever, nothing scarred or meaningful. Lets try another example Why not make it legal for euthanasia or abortion. Never mind killing innocent people, as long as the burden is off us, all is good. This is why we need a perfect law above the hearts of man, so that we don’t make rules to fit our sick natures.
The hero you follow is the model you will shape society with. It’s sad that many parents these days are not good role models for their children. In fact some children act more normal than their parents. But their parent’s actions will shape them and their actions. A broken family will likely produce a broken kid. If parents can’t show a decent example or act as a normal functioning moral person, where are the children of today supposed to go to understand their place in this world and know how one should act. Should they go looking for our great role models from Hollywood, who have all the frame and money, but cant even keep a marriage together or say no to drugs. Just driven with lust and frame. What about the music world, should we all be indoctrinated with Gangster life styles, the dream of money, sex and beautiful women, but in reality just guns and violence. Or should our role models come from a different genre of music where women just sell their songs by lust and flesh, making them out to be sex objects for any one who likes the song. Why not tease, and then pull away, it only drive’s people to be sex addicts, rapists or Pedo’s, because sex has been trashed. Or should we seek some where else for a hero for society. Maybe Jesus the one people think is so old fashion and out of touch with reality should be our role model. He could reform society with ease.
But we believe we can make our own role models according to our likes and feelings, we don’t need God. We believe everything is ok as long as you don’t hurt anyone to the best of your definition of hurt and to the best of your knowledge. Oh we believe in sex before, during and after marriage. We believe in the therapy of sin, that adultery is fun, that sodomy is ok, that taboo’s are taboo.
We believe that everything is getting better despite evidence to the contrary. We believe there something in horoscopes UFO’s and bent spoons. Jesus was a good man just like Buddha, Mohammed and ourselves. He was a good teacher although we think his morals are bad. We believe that man is essentially good it’s just his behavior that lets him down. This is the fault of society. Society is the fault of conditions. Conditions are the fault of society.
We believe that each man must find the truth that is right for him. Reality will adapt accordingly. The universe will adjust. History will alter. We believe there is no absolute truth, excepting the truth that there are no absolute truths. We believe what’s selected is average, what’s average is normal, what’s normal is good. We believe morality evolved by chance determined by our genes, we desire it, so it’s right. we reject any idea of a correct way to function accroding to a designer, we just sleep with any thing that shows a response.
This is the nonsense that we have to put up with when one refuses to acknowledge God and his ways. Be careful who your role model is?
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Heterosexuality is a Universal Cultural Norm (Part2)
When it comes to our sexuality, is it a matter of personal taste or preferences or is it due to our created gender and created order. Is heterosexuality just another preference, like homosexuality? I think we must be careful here because people will say that its not a preference but is who I am. I did not chose to like the same sex, but this is what I found myself to like and to be.
One must be careful when one says, “This is how I feel or am meant to be”. Does this mean that our sexual preferences are based on “feelings” or on correct union of genders. Is what is right based on what we feel, or does our created nature tell us something about reality. One truth that we can not get away from is that heterosexuality is a universal cultural norm, it is not just a preference. The union of a male and female in a family unit with procreation and kids is what keeps society functioning healthy. Therefore homosexuality is endangering society and humanity. Without this norm humanity would come to extinction and not exist. If homosexuality were a universal norm, life would not continue. If life is to continue the way it always has been heterosexuality must be classed as a universal and cultural norm.
If our sexuality was based on just our “feelings” then who could deny any combinations of relationship, including sisters or brothers. Feelings are a dangerous place to define what is right and what is wrong. What happens if you like animals or young kids, or Grandparents, or even tree’s? Definition should be based on adult consent of correct use of genders according to a universal norm if right and wrong have any meaning at all. A Male and a Females body connects in harmony perfectly, they are designed to connect and reproduce. Our feelings, which can at times be wrong, must be defined by our gender and physical natures.
If our genders define our sexuality and keep our feelings in order, then we are what we have been created to be and not what we feel we like to be. If heterosexuality demonstrates a universal norm, what do we mean by “norm”. Does this imply what is normal, what is right or what is good for humanity, or what works…I think the answer implies all of them in some way. Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying homosexual people are evil or perverts, but what I am saying is that they have misunderstood there relationship with reality and our correct function to exist. Some might say we can live how we want, we can adopt children or use artificial ways to have children to keep humanity running. But this again is wrong. Why should we change what is normal and has worked perfectly well since time began. Why not accept that some of our feelings go against our created natures and genders. Some feelings are just wrong, out of correct balance with reality and God.
To say one is just born this way, opens up many questions. What does this mean?
Is this based on your gender or your feelings? If your feelings then you cannot condemn the person that likes to sleep with animals or with kids or the rapist who say’s his feelings come from the way he was born. We all have many feelings, but how are we to know that we were born this way to have these desires, which we class as true and correct, if there is no design or purpose to reality. If any feelings can be classed as wrong, then they must be judged against a standard that the universe is supposed to be following. I mean we were all born, and we all act according to feelings, so does that mean that all feelings have the same value and worth and truth content as each other. To say that I was born this way, if there is no correct standard doesn’t really put any weight to an argument.
One must be careful when one says, “This is how I feel or am meant to be”. Does this mean that our sexual preferences are based on “feelings” or on correct union of genders. Is what is right based on what we feel, or does our created nature tell us something about reality. One truth that we can not get away from is that heterosexuality is a universal cultural norm, it is not just a preference. The union of a male and female in a family unit with procreation and kids is what keeps society functioning healthy. Therefore homosexuality is endangering society and humanity. Without this norm humanity would come to extinction and not exist. If homosexuality were a universal norm, life would not continue. If life is to continue the way it always has been heterosexuality must be classed as a universal and cultural norm.
If our sexuality was based on just our “feelings” then who could deny any combinations of relationship, including sisters or brothers. Feelings are a dangerous place to define what is right and what is wrong. What happens if you like animals or young kids, or Grandparents, or even tree’s? Definition should be based on adult consent of correct use of genders according to a universal norm if right and wrong have any meaning at all. A Male and a Females body connects in harmony perfectly, they are designed to connect and reproduce. Our feelings, which can at times be wrong, must be defined by our gender and physical natures.
If our genders define our sexuality and keep our feelings in order, then we are what we have been created to be and not what we feel we like to be. If heterosexuality demonstrates a universal norm, what do we mean by “norm”. Does this imply what is normal, what is right or what is good for humanity, or what works…I think the answer implies all of them in some way. Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying homosexual people are evil or perverts, but what I am saying is that they have misunderstood there relationship with reality and our correct function to exist. Some might say we can live how we want, we can adopt children or use artificial ways to have children to keep humanity running. But this again is wrong. Why should we change what is normal and has worked perfectly well since time began. Why not accept that some of our feelings go against our created natures and genders. Some feelings are just wrong, out of correct balance with reality and God.
To say one is just born this way, opens up many questions. What does this mean?
Is this based on your gender or your feelings? If your feelings then you cannot condemn the person that likes to sleep with animals or with kids or the rapist who say’s his feelings come from the way he was born. We all have many feelings, but how are we to know that we were born this way to have these desires, which we class as true and correct, if there is no design or purpose to reality. If any feelings can be classed as wrong, then they must be judged against a standard that the universe is supposed to be following. I mean we were all born, and we all act according to feelings, so does that mean that all feelings have the same value and worth and truth content as each other. To say that I was born this way, if there is no correct standard doesn’t really put any weight to an argument.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Same Sex Marriage, where does it lead to? (Part1)
In this post, I want to try and get us to think on the subject of same sex marriages and where it will lead society in the end. I know there will be a few who will start reading this and start labeling me, Intolerant, Homophobic and Dogmatic just because I bring the question up. But to be honest every one of those labels fails in describing me and my purpose in writing this post. To say that I am intolerant of people’s view, is to imply that the one disagreeing with me is tolerant of other peoples views. But this can not be the case if you will not tolerate my view to not accept same sex marriages. In fact you are just as intolerant as I am made out to be. The truth is, that the meaning of being intolerant has no meaning what’s so ever unless there is an absolute standard of right and wrong to which being intolerant is being judge against. And as any Christian will ask “Where does that objective standard come from”. As I have always said, if reality as a whole does not have its own interpretation and meaning to it, then us humans are lift to invent our own principles and rules. But if this world is a rational meaningful world then there is a rational mind behind it who has design things to act according to a correct way to function, which manifests the highest good. Either marriage is based in God’s created order of a man and women, who have a powerful connection to fit together on many levels to manifest love and faithfulness and procreation, or marriage is just a human construction shaped and modeled after our own inventions.
Also the label that I am Homophobic is also false, as I am not scared of homosexuals or fear them or hate them (I have friends who are that way), I just disagree with them. Nor am I any more dogmatic then they are in standing for what I believe.
If marriage is just a social construction then there is really no way that one can object to any marital union. If marriage is just about people being together who love each other, who can condemn the family on 60 Minutes the other day where a Father was sleeping with his daughter and had already given birth to two children. I mean does it not sound strange that the Child’s father was his Dad and also his Grandfather at the same time. I mean many people who watch the program were all condemning them, but on what bases is it wrong if marriage is just about two people who love each other.
When traditional marriage is merely a social construction, no principled reason keeps the state from permitting virtually any marital union. For example, marital arrangements that include two brothers, two sisters, a mother and son, a father and a son, a mother and a daughter, or a grandfather and a grandson, would be consistent with the philosophical assumptions undergirding the same sex marriage defense.
And this is not all, Nor is a polygamous marriage of one man and numerous spouses, which also may include his mother, his grandmother, his grandfather, as well as his adult daughter and son, inconsistent with the same sex marriage worldview. I mean where does it end, does marriage not stand for anything anymore? What about those who are bisexual and cant live with just one spouse of the same sex, why should he/she not be able to marry the ones he or she loves. Also why can’t some one marry their pets, why should we be dogmatic on speciesism. Shouldn’t we tolerate all species?
In the end we open the door, to complete ciaos, and reduce marriage to nothing. Does not marriage demonstrate some thing more profound than just sleeping with any thing in a number of different combinations. If same sex marriage is just a human invention, then why cant the rest of the examples be established if its just based on love and sex and no designed order.
Does nothing in this universe have a correct way to function?
Also the label that I am Homophobic is also false, as I am not scared of homosexuals or fear them or hate them (I have friends who are that way), I just disagree with them. Nor am I any more dogmatic then they are in standing for what I believe.
If marriage is just a social construction then there is really no way that one can object to any marital union. If marriage is just about people being together who love each other, who can condemn the family on 60 Minutes the other day where a Father was sleeping with his daughter and had already given birth to two children. I mean does it not sound strange that the Child’s father was his Dad and also his Grandfather at the same time. I mean many people who watch the program were all condemning them, but on what bases is it wrong if marriage is just about two people who love each other.
When traditional marriage is merely a social construction, no principled reason keeps the state from permitting virtually any marital union. For example, marital arrangements that include two brothers, two sisters, a mother and son, a father and a son, a mother and a daughter, or a grandfather and a grandson, would be consistent with the philosophical assumptions undergirding the same sex marriage defense.
And this is not all, Nor is a polygamous marriage of one man and numerous spouses, which also may include his mother, his grandmother, his grandfather, as well as his adult daughter and son, inconsistent with the same sex marriage worldview. I mean where does it end, does marriage not stand for anything anymore? What about those who are bisexual and cant live with just one spouse of the same sex, why should he/she not be able to marry the ones he or she loves. Also why can’t some one marry their pets, why should we be dogmatic on speciesism. Shouldn’t we tolerate all species?
In the end we open the door, to complete ciaos, and reduce marriage to nothing. Does not marriage demonstrate some thing more profound than just sleeping with any thing in a number of different combinations. If same sex marriage is just a human invention, then why cant the rest of the examples be established if its just based on love and sex and no designed order.
Does nothing in this universe have a correct way to function?
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Reason is Useless without a Moral Law
We have been looking at ways that try to start from the ground up in establishing morality from rational agency.
My whole point in the last few posts has been to prove that reason alone (without our human nature having a moral law) can not give us a reason why we should be moral or even what should be classed as morality.
"As Any reason for being moral must be either a moral or a nonmoral reason. If it is moral, then it cannot really be a reason for being moral, since you would have to be already inside morality in order to accept it. A nonmoral reason, on the other hand, cannot be a reason for being moral; morality requires a purity of motive, a basically moral intentionality, and that is destroyed by any nonmoral inducement. Hence there can be no reason for being moral, and morality presents itself as an unmediated demand, a categorical imperative."
Without God's moral law on our heart, reason is useless in defending morality and goodness.
My whole point in the last few posts has been to prove that reason alone (without our human nature having a moral law) can not give us a reason why we should be moral or even what should be classed as morality.
"As Any reason for being moral must be either a moral or a nonmoral reason. If it is moral, then it cannot really be a reason for being moral, since you would have to be already inside morality in order to accept it. A nonmoral reason, on the other hand, cannot be a reason for being moral; morality requires a purity of motive, a basically moral intentionality, and that is destroyed by any nonmoral inducement. Hence there can be no reason for being moral, and morality presents itself as an unmediated demand, a categorical imperative."
Without God's moral law on our heart, reason is useless in defending morality and goodness.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Ontology/teleology and the Moral Law
Many Atheists believe that knowing good and evil, or right or wrong is an obvious thing to see. We do not need God to explain right and wrong, so they say. Richard Carrier in his book, makes the charge “do we all live in a sick society” implying that many of us are normal functionally people who live moral lives. It seems for the atheist that right and wrong is based on conceptual thoughts and ideas and not on a designed nature to act good.
Carrier says,
“In fact the universe exhibits zero value affinity, it operates exactly the same for everyone, the good and the bad. It rewards and craps on both with total disregard. It behaves just like a cold and indifferent machine, not the creation of a loving engineer. The only place any sort of value effect is every seen is in human thought and action, and only when humans are psychologically developed in a certain way. It thus stands to reason that values do not come from the design of the universe, but the adaptation of Homo sapiens to that universe, and in particular to a social ecology. After all the only place values are ever found are in human thought.”
Carrier makes it clear in this passage that values are not part of the universe as a whole, they are not part of a design. Humans invent them and use them.
Another bloger which I engage debate with says,
“Concepts of good and evil are in fact subjective. Still, thanks to common ancestry, there is a great deal of agreement about them among people. Science's role is not to define good and evil, but can be used to examine whether certain dubious behaviors cause effects that most people would clearly label good (or evil). I can't put it any simpler for you, sorry.”
So for the atheist good and evil are subjective ideas, that we can all have and see. It is just a matter of working out which work the best for most people, bringing more pleasure and less pain to people. The first problem with this is that “Happiness can be very subjective” and if we can in fact “all” see a value system that works for most people, does this not push for an objective standard. I believe it is true that atheists can see what good and evil is, (they say without God) because of the moral law that is written in us by God.
“For when the Gentiles who do not have the law (of Moses) do instinctively the things of the law, these, not having the law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them (Rom. 2;14-15)”
Atheist might say they don’t need God to have morality, but scripture agrees, but we can’t get rid of God that easily. God is the author of the moral law written in our hearts. This is the objective standard that we all feel in side us that is independent of our own choices and actions. If there is an objective standard of good and evil, then there must be a moral lawgiver independent of our choices and feelings imposing our obligation to submit to it. This I believe is God, who is the eternal perfect, Good Being, who creates humans in his image, to bear his nature (in a finite sense) and moral standards. For the atheist this is just not so, humans have just invented these standards from conceptual ideas. But I believe this is a huge jump from the story of evolution. Big Bang, evolved by chance, no design or purpose, minds appear and think moral values, in a valueless universe.
Erik Wielenberg in his book “God and the Reach of Reason” takes on the moral argument of C.S Lewis and tries to refute it in chapter two of his book. I found the book interesting, but the more I read the quotes from Lewis I believed Lewis’s argument was stronger than ever.
Lewis says,
‘If there was a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts of the universe…The only way in which we could expect it to show itself would be inside ourselves as an influence or a command trying to get us to behave in a certain way. And that is just what we do find inside ourselves. Surely this is out to arouse our suspicions…I find that I do not exist on my own, that I am under a law; that somebody or something wants me to behave in a certain way.”
To say that an action or event is objectively wrong is to judge it according to an objective standard independent of human opinion and according to a standard that the universe should be following. This implies that there is a moral lawgiver behind the universe. If God does not exist then this universe is valueless.
If evolution was true, then why should we feel obligated to follow this moral law if it is just an impersonal force, which has evolved by chance. If there is no moral law then there is no conscience of the judge judging our thoughts and desires and bringing them into line.
For atheists who reject the moral law, they normally hold to nominalism and its conception of right reason. Humans do not they say have a created, designed nature that draws them to do good according to a good nature. For the atheist there is no guide or light in mankind or inherent teleology that draws us towards truth or goodness. No for the atheists all that humans are left with is right reason, and reason alone will tell us what is good and what is evil. As for the Christian we believe that God has created us teleological good, to function good with a ontological good nature. And this nature acts under the guidance’s of the moral law and standard of God. Since the natural order is teleological, oriented to good ends, moral law is evident in the natural ends of the human species.
For the atheist there is no good nature to humans, just his power to think right, which I would imply that there is an objective standard to thinking right then !?
But can reason alone change our behavior, I don’t think it can as if our bodies are not created to function good, or even moral, then how can we make it comply with our moral ideas. Reason alone cannot affect behavior as most of our thoughts are guided by our emotions which are part of a nature. Reason alone would just give us propositions, but no reason to act on any of them. If we have objective emotions then we again have a designed nature, which acts and feels good and evil. Reason must act with and in balance with our emotions and good nature.
Carrier says,
“In fact the universe exhibits zero value affinity, it operates exactly the same for everyone, the good and the bad. It rewards and craps on both with total disregard. It behaves just like a cold and indifferent machine, not the creation of a loving engineer. The only place any sort of value effect is every seen is in human thought and action, and only when humans are psychologically developed in a certain way. It thus stands to reason that values do not come from the design of the universe, but the adaptation of Homo sapiens to that universe, and in particular to a social ecology. After all the only place values are ever found are in human thought.”
Carrier makes it clear in this passage that values are not part of the universe as a whole, they are not part of a design. Humans invent them and use them.
Another bloger which I engage debate with says,
“Concepts of good and evil are in fact subjective. Still, thanks to common ancestry, there is a great deal of agreement about them among people. Science's role is not to define good and evil, but can be used to examine whether certain dubious behaviors cause effects that most people would clearly label good (or evil). I can't put it any simpler for you, sorry.”
So for the atheist good and evil are subjective ideas, that we can all have and see. It is just a matter of working out which work the best for most people, bringing more pleasure and less pain to people. The first problem with this is that “Happiness can be very subjective” and if we can in fact “all” see a value system that works for most people, does this not push for an objective standard. I believe it is true that atheists can see what good and evil is, (they say without God) because of the moral law that is written in us by God.
“For when the Gentiles who do not have the law (of Moses) do instinctively the things of the law, these, not having the law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them (Rom. 2;14-15)”
Atheist might say they don’t need God to have morality, but scripture agrees, but we can’t get rid of God that easily. God is the author of the moral law written in our hearts. This is the objective standard that we all feel in side us that is independent of our own choices and actions. If there is an objective standard of good and evil, then there must be a moral lawgiver independent of our choices and feelings imposing our obligation to submit to it. This I believe is God, who is the eternal perfect, Good Being, who creates humans in his image, to bear his nature (in a finite sense) and moral standards. For the atheist this is just not so, humans have just invented these standards from conceptual ideas. But I believe this is a huge jump from the story of evolution. Big Bang, evolved by chance, no design or purpose, minds appear and think moral values, in a valueless universe.
Erik Wielenberg in his book “God and the Reach of Reason” takes on the moral argument of C.S Lewis and tries to refute it in chapter two of his book. I found the book interesting, but the more I read the quotes from Lewis I believed Lewis’s argument was stronger than ever.
Lewis says,
‘If there was a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts of the universe…The only way in which we could expect it to show itself would be inside ourselves as an influence or a command trying to get us to behave in a certain way. And that is just what we do find inside ourselves. Surely this is out to arouse our suspicions…I find that I do not exist on my own, that I am under a law; that somebody or something wants me to behave in a certain way.”
To say that an action or event is objectively wrong is to judge it according to an objective standard independent of human opinion and according to a standard that the universe should be following. This implies that there is a moral lawgiver behind the universe. If God does not exist then this universe is valueless.
If evolution was true, then why should we feel obligated to follow this moral law if it is just an impersonal force, which has evolved by chance. If there is no moral law then there is no conscience of the judge judging our thoughts and desires and bringing them into line.
For atheists who reject the moral law, they normally hold to nominalism and its conception of right reason. Humans do not they say have a created, designed nature that draws them to do good according to a good nature. For the atheist there is no guide or light in mankind or inherent teleology that draws us towards truth or goodness. No for the atheists all that humans are left with is right reason, and reason alone will tell us what is good and what is evil. As for the Christian we believe that God has created us teleological good, to function good with a ontological good nature. And this nature acts under the guidance’s of the moral law and standard of God. Since the natural order is teleological, oriented to good ends, moral law is evident in the natural ends of the human species.
For the atheist there is no good nature to humans, just his power to think right, which I would imply that there is an objective standard to thinking right then !?
But can reason alone change our behavior, I don’t think it can as if our bodies are not created to function good, or even moral, then how can we make it comply with our moral ideas. Reason alone cannot affect behavior as most of our thoughts are guided by our emotions which are part of a nature. Reason alone would just give us propositions, but no reason to act on any of them. If we have objective emotions then we again have a designed nature, which acts and feels good and evil. Reason must act with and in balance with our emotions and good nature.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Sense and Goodness without God
Richard Carrier in his book “Sense and Goodness without God; a defense of Metaphysical Naturalism” makes the claim that “we do not need God to have objective morality”. Carrier defines his view as Secular Humanism and it holds to two basic doctrines, that the progress and welfare of all human beings is the greatest good. Now this sound good but what is “Good” and what brings the greatest good to all people?
For carrier it comes down to not harming people and also what is good is clearly objectively obvious to those whose faculties are working properly. It is strange that this new Atheist moment of late seems to believe that the good is obvious. So why has the history of ethical philosophy been debating the issue for centuries. For the record atheist haven’t shown very good examples of being good without God. It has been Christianity that has dogmatically held that there are absolute fixed morals against others that have held to a pragmatic view. I mean if Christianity’s ethics are lived out to the words and deeds of Jesus, life would be a great place. So its interesting that Atheist now think that objective morality is obvious to any rational person who’s thinking faculties are working properly.
It seems that all that the atheist is doing is snatching Christianity’s morality and throwing away God. I mean just stating moral principles doesn’t imply God does not exist. . The problem with Carriers view is just stating his theory does not make it objective for all people.
Carriers defends his system,
“The Goal Theory does not root moral value in popular sentiment or majority vote, or even in current beliefs or attitudes, but in the actual facts, particularly in the sentiments that every person would have if they were both (1) fully informed of all the true facts about themselves and the universe and (2) cognitively accurate in their analysis of these facts. In other words, when we know what is true, and logically deduce from this what is actually valuable to us, we will all find ourselves in agreement about a certain set of objects of value. And this entails a certain set of behavioral principles, and by virtue of this universal agreement, those objects would have objective value, and those behaviors would be objectively right and wrong. Hence, values are objective because every person who is informed of all the facts and whose reasoning abilities are functioning properly would agree to them. (Note: When we call something "objective," we mean that it is true regardless of people’s opinions, and that they would agree with it if they knew all the details and were thinking clearly.”
Carrier argues that values are objective because everyone would agree with them if they knew all the facts and were thinking clearly. This is equivalent to saying, "Values are objective because they are objective." Thus, Richard hasn’t offered an argument for the objectivity of moral values. He has simply restated the meaning of "objective.") Richard applies a similar argument in favor of the value of life itself, for he says that "life has objective value to the degree that every sane and informed person would value it if informed of all the facts, and their cognitive faculties were functioning without error.
David Wood makes a good point when he says,
“There are several problems with this view. First, it suggests that in order to reach this state of agreement, we will have to be "fully informed of all the true facts." But how can we ever know that we are in full possession of the facts? Until we reach such a state of knowledge, Richard’s moral theory is useless. (I also find it difficult to believe that it would be helpful for Richard to simply walk up to a Nazi and "tell" him that his views are factually false. Would this strategy ever work?) Second, it is difficult to believe that people will agree on moral issues as soon as they are in possession of all the facts. No matter how many facts we learn, people still disagree about things like abortion and homosexuality. Will a few more facts change this disagreement? Third, Richard says that there will be moral agreement as long as everyone’s cognitive faculties are working. But who is to decide whose faculties are functioning properly? That is, if I say that abortion is wrong, and Richard says that it is right, we will be at a standoff. He will say that my faculties are malfunctioning, and I will argue the same about him. In other words, determining proper mental function when it comes to moral values seems like it would be an extremely subjective science, and Richard is arguing for objective values”
We are still left in his atheistic worldview with the question “What objective standard do we use to define ‘what is proper functioning faculties”
Carrier also thinks that something is immoral only if it interferes with another person’s happiness and he uses this principle to test moral claims:
Since homosexual sex hinders no one’s happiness, while suppression of homosexual emotions has been empirically proven to be destructive of human life and happiness, it is actually immoral to denounce or repress them.
David Wood replies again with an interesting point,
“Suppose America adopted Richard’s position into law. Only acts that interfere with the happiness of others would be classified as immoral. Now let’s try a test case. Bob is caught with a great deal of child pornography. What should the government do? We might reasonably conclude that taking pictures of naked children could interfere with their happiness, since being child porn-stars may give rise to psychological problems. So Bob should go to jail. But let’s modify the scenario. Bob took the pictures with a hidden camera while the children were having their bath. This wouldn’t affect the children, since they wouldn’t know about the pictures. However, we may argue that the children may one day find out about the pictures (by seeing them on the internet, for instance), so this could still cause problems. Hence, Bob should still go to jail. But let’s modify the situation a little more. Using a hidden camera, Bob took pictures of naked children while they were having a bath, and the children were wearing masks. There is now no conceivable way for the children to be affected by the pictures, so according to Richard, we couldn’t call this pornography immoral. One may respond by arguing that child pornography may trigger thoughts that lead pedophiles to prey on children, but this could also be applied to any sort of pornography. Richard would never agree that all pornography should be banned, so why ban child porn? The answer, of course, is that it should be banned because it’s immoral. It doesn’t matter whose happiness it affects; it’s still wrong, as are many other things. Even if a man and his horse are completely happy as lovers, it is still an immoral relationship. This is why Richard’s moral theory is utterly impractical. It’s also why he admits that he can’t think of a single fixed moral law:”
The major problem with Richard Carriers claims is that it is not objective, and where does one go to seek an objective standard that can judge who has proper functioning faculties. The next problem is, is it that easy to see what is the greatest good for humanity. I mean Jesus did, because of his perfection and hand in creating us, he has given us perfect rules that fit with how we are created to sense happiness and peace and fulfillment, that don’t harm people. Some people opinions are wrong, some peoples desires might be good for them but not for all. But to think humans can just come along and do the same thing, with trail and error killing and hurting millions along the way to find the good, I don’t think is the greatest good. And I don’t think human are any where close to writing an objective moral rule book for the world, that is different than Jesus’. And if it is the same then what a waste of time of rejecting it all along. It is also a bad example of carrier’s statement that “what is good” is obvious to all atheists who have proper functioning brains.
Is it that easy to see what is objectively good and well being for all people? I mean well being or success can be very subjective and easy to bend standards. I mean large groups have killed millions of Jews to gain success and happiness, to rid the world of inferior races that threaten the race with problems and unhappiness. What about abortions and euthanasia, it may seem to help people engage in more happiness, but is it moral? Do contradictory points of view that help deferent kinds of large groups make well being easy to define. What if an abortionist believes he’s helping “unexpectedly “expecting” women to uphold their right to control their own bodies and their freedom of choice? And what if the abortionist claims he finds the killing of unborn babies satisfying and useful for the upward mobility of women in society. But then what about volunteers at a pro-life counseling center who are richly rewarded and gratified by counseling women considering abortion to keep their babies. These volunteers are also aware of post abortion trauma and the psychological havoc that abortion wreak’s on women. So to say what ever works for you leads to deep conflict. Both cannot be true can they?
What we think is useful or promotes well being is for some is person relative or culture relative, and there are many different options out there. But something’s can be true even if it’s detrimental to a this-worldly sense of well being or success.
All atheist attempts to ground objective morality seem to fail,
The idea that non-moral properties just evolved into moral properties, and we just have to define what we think is good out of the options, then live them. The idea that humans are not created morally good to do good, but some how we have just over time evolved with abstract thoughts from non-conscious matter, that goodness is real and useful. The ideas that objective morals and values exist independently out side human thoughts in matter some where in an impersonal universe (moral realism). The idea that are actions are hardwired to irrational chemical reactions in our heads that in the end rob us of free will and responsibility. That morality because it has evolved and at times humans have had to fight to survive in the process of evolution, make morality subjective and rape can be a virtue to promote the survival of the species.
For carrier it comes down to not harming people and also what is good is clearly objectively obvious to those whose faculties are working properly. It is strange that this new Atheist moment of late seems to believe that the good is obvious. So why has the history of ethical philosophy been debating the issue for centuries. For the record atheist haven’t shown very good examples of being good without God. It has been Christianity that has dogmatically held that there are absolute fixed morals against others that have held to a pragmatic view. I mean if Christianity’s ethics are lived out to the words and deeds of Jesus, life would be a great place. So its interesting that Atheist now think that objective morality is obvious to any rational person who’s thinking faculties are working properly.
It seems that all that the atheist is doing is snatching Christianity’s morality and throwing away God. I mean just stating moral principles doesn’t imply God does not exist. . The problem with Carriers view is just stating his theory does not make it objective for all people.
Carriers defends his system,
“The Goal Theory does not root moral value in popular sentiment or majority vote, or even in current beliefs or attitudes, but in the actual facts, particularly in the sentiments that every person would have if they were both (1) fully informed of all the true facts about themselves and the universe and (2) cognitively accurate in their analysis of these facts. In other words, when we know what is true, and logically deduce from this what is actually valuable to us, we will all find ourselves in agreement about a certain set of objects of value. And this entails a certain set of behavioral principles, and by virtue of this universal agreement, those objects would have objective value, and those behaviors would be objectively right and wrong. Hence, values are objective because every person who is informed of all the facts and whose reasoning abilities are functioning properly would agree to them. (Note: When we call something "objective," we mean that it is true regardless of people’s opinions, and that they would agree with it if they knew all the details and were thinking clearly.”
Carrier argues that values are objective because everyone would agree with them if they knew all the facts and were thinking clearly. This is equivalent to saying, "Values are objective because they are objective." Thus, Richard hasn’t offered an argument for the objectivity of moral values. He has simply restated the meaning of "objective.") Richard applies a similar argument in favor of the value of life itself, for he says that "life has objective value to the degree that every sane and informed person would value it if informed of all the facts, and their cognitive faculties were functioning without error.
David Wood makes a good point when he says,
“There are several problems with this view. First, it suggests that in order to reach this state of agreement, we will have to be "fully informed of all the true facts." But how can we ever know that we are in full possession of the facts? Until we reach such a state of knowledge, Richard’s moral theory is useless. (I also find it difficult to believe that it would be helpful for Richard to simply walk up to a Nazi and "tell" him that his views are factually false. Would this strategy ever work?) Second, it is difficult to believe that people will agree on moral issues as soon as they are in possession of all the facts. No matter how many facts we learn, people still disagree about things like abortion and homosexuality. Will a few more facts change this disagreement? Third, Richard says that there will be moral agreement as long as everyone’s cognitive faculties are working. But who is to decide whose faculties are functioning properly? That is, if I say that abortion is wrong, and Richard says that it is right, we will be at a standoff. He will say that my faculties are malfunctioning, and I will argue the same about him. In other words, determining proper mental function when it comes to moral values seems like it would be an extremely subjective science, and Richard is arguing for objective values”
We are still left in his atheistic worldview with the question “What objective standard do we use to define ‘what is proper functioning faculties”
Carrier also thinks that something is immoral only if it interferes with another person’s happiness and he uses this principle to test moral claims:
Since homosexual sex hinders no one’s happiness, while suppression of homosexual emotions has been empirically proven to be destructive of human life and happiness, it is actually immoral to denounce or repress them.
David Wood replies again with an interesting point,
“Suppose America adopted Richard’s position into law. Only acts that interfere with the happiness of others would be classified as immoral. Now let’s try a test case. Bob is caught with a great deal of child pornography. What should the government do? We might reasonably conclude that taking pictures of naked children could interfere with their happiness, since being child porn-stars may give rise to psychological problems. So Bob should go to jail. But let’s modify the scenario. Bob took the pictures with a hidden camera while the children were having their bath. This wouldn’t affect the children, since they wouldn’t know about the pictures. However, we may argue that the children may one day find out about the pictures (by seeing them on the internet, for instance), so this could still cause problems. Hence, Bob should still go to jail. But let’s modify the situation a little more. Using a hidden camera, Bob took pictures of naked children while they were having a bath, and the children were wearing masks. There is now no conceivable way for the children to be affected by the pictures, so according to Richard, we couldn’t call this pornography immoral. One may respond by arguing that child pornography may trigger thoughts that lead pedophiles to prey on children, but this could also be applied to any sort of pornography. Richard would never agree that all pornography should be banned, so why ban child porn? The answer, of course, is that it should be banned because it’s immoral. It doesn’t matter whose happiness it affects; it’s still wrong, as are many other things. Even if a man and his horse are completely happy as lovers, it is still an immoral relationship. This is why Richard’s moral theory is utterly impractical. It’s also why he admits that he can’t think of a single fixed moral law:”
The major problem with Richard Carriers claims is that it is not objective, and where does one go to seek an objective standard that can judge who has proper functioning faculties. The next problem is, is it that easy to see what is the greatest good for humanity. I mean Jesus did, because of his perfection and hand in creating us, he has given us perfect rules that fit with how we are created to sense happiness and peace and fulfillment, that don’t harm people. Some people opinions are wrong, some peoples desires might be good for them but not for all. But to think humans can just come along and do the same thing, with trail and error killing and hurting millions along the way to find the good, I don’t think is the greatest good. And I don’t think human are any where close to writing an objective moral rule book for the world, that is different than Jesus’. And if it is the same then what a waste of time of rejecting it all along. It is also a bad example of carrier’s statement that “what is good” is obvious to all atheists who have proper functioning brains.
Is it that easy to see what is objectively good and well being for all people? I mean well being or success can be very subjective and easy to bend standards. I mean large groups have killed millions of Jews to gain success and happiness, to rid the world of inferior races that threaten the race with problems and unhappiness. What about abortions and euthanasia, it may seem to help people engage in more happiness, but is it moral? Do contradictory points of view that help deferent kinds of large groups make well being easy to define. What if an abortionist believes he’s helping “unexpectedly “expecting” women to uphold their right to control their own bodies and their freedom of choice? And what if the abortionist claims he finds the killing of unborn babies satisfying and useful for the upward mobility of women in society. But then what about volunteers at a pro-life counseling center who are richly rewarded and gratified by counseling women considering abortion to keep their babies. These volunteers are also aware of post abortion trauma and the psychological havoc that abortion wreak’s on women. So to say what ever works for you leads to deep conflict. Both cannot be true can they?
What we think is useful or promotes well being is for some is person relative or culture relative, and there are many different options out there. But something’s can be true even if it’s detrimental to a this-worldly sense of well being or success.
All atheist attempts to ground objective morality seem to fail,
The idea that non-moral properties just evolved into moral properties, and we just have to define what we think is good out of the options, then live them. The idea that humans are not created morally good to do good, but some how we have just over time evolved with abstract thoughts from non-conscious matter, that goodness is real and useful. The ideas that objective morals and values exist independently out side human thoughts in matter some where in an impersonal universe (moral realism). The idea that are actions are hardwired to irrational chemical reactions in our heads that in the end rob us of free will and responsibility. That morality because it has evolved and at times humans have had to fight to survive in the process of evolution, make morality subjective and rape can be a virtue to promote the survival of the species.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)