Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Becky’s Lesson, a Viginette

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Friday, May 12, 2017
Hermann Göring High School
Brooklyn, New York

Wilhelm Johnson was at the top of his game.  He held a master’s degree in history from NYU and had spent over 35 years working hard to become a master teacher.  In all his decades in the classroom he had never stopped honing his skills.  Even now, at a time in his career when many of his colleagues had begun to coast toward retirement, Johnson worked into the evening every day, personally grading essays and polishing his lesson plans for the next day.  He loved his job and considered it a great honor and privilege that the Reich had bestowed on him the responsibility of molding young minds in the largest and most important city in the Bundesland of New York.

Johnson turned to the whiteboard at the front of his senior modern history class, wrote in large block letters “WATERSHED MOMENT,” and asked the class, “Who can tell me what a watershed moment is?”  As usual, Patricia Garland’s hand popped up as if it had a will of its own.  Garland was the highly-resented, curve-busting class gunner, but Johnson had to give her her due; she knew her stuff, and since hers was the only raised hand he said, “Miss Garland.”

“A watershed moment is a crucial dividing point in history where all subsequent events go one way or the other, a turning point.  It derives its name from a geographical watershed in which the water that falls on a particular side of a ridge drains to one river, and the water on the other side drains to a different river.”

“That is exactly correct, Miss Garland.  I see you have been reading ahead.”  Garland beamed; several of her classmates were unable to resist rolling their eyes.  Turning back to the whiteboard and tapping the phrase, Johnson said, “Today we are going to talk about the decision to replace Abraham Esau with Werner Heisenberg as the head of the German nuclear weapons program in 1940.  With the rather obvious exception of the Great Führer’s 1921 decision to assume his role in history by stepping up to lead the Party, the Heisenberg appointment was perhaps the most crucial moment of the 20th Century.”

From the back of the class, Brad Anderson piped up without raising his hand, “Surely Field Marshal Keitel’s decision to nuke London and Moscow in late 1943, causing England and the Soviet Union to surrender within days of one another, was more important to history than an obscure administrative shift in the German Army Ordnance Office.”

“Any fool can pull a trigger, Mr. Anderson.  Who is more crucial, the first user of a revolutionary new weapon, or the genius who invented it in the first place?  And in this case, timing was everything.  Under Esau, the German nuclear weapons program was at a standstill.  After the war we learned there was a competing program right here in the former United States called the ‘Manhattan Project.’  German scientists estimate the American research program was not that far behind and might have had an operational weapon as early as 1945.  That is why Heisenberg’s appointment was so crucial.  His combination of charisma, intelligence and hard work was just what the German program needed to get on track to beat the Americans.  He replaced Esau in February 1940 and began pushing for the Reich to throw its industrial might behind the project.  As a direct result of his efforts, Germany had an operational weapon by August 1943, and the rest, as they say, is history.  The weapon was literally unstoppable.  Within six months every one of Germany’s enemies had either surrendered outright or sued for peace, marking the beginning of Germany’s program for the unification of the world’s governments under Berlin’s leadership.  That obscure administrative shift, Mr. Anderson, was the very essence of a watershed moment.”

The bell rang; books began slamming shut a microsecond later, and students started shuffling toward the door.  Johnson called out to their retreating backs, “Don’t forget!  Quiz on Monday on the Great Führer’s 1947 decision to conquer Japan, his former ally.”

The next hour was Johnson’s planning period, and as the students made their way out of the room he walked over to his desk at the front of the room.  Before he sat down he heard someone clear their throat behind him.  He turned around to see Becky Schumann, perhaps his brightest student after Patty Garland, waiting to speak to him.

“Yes, Miss Schumann, how can I help you today?”

Becky looked up shyly and in a hesitant voice said, “Mr. Johnson, I have learned so much from you, and I wanted to take just a moment before the end of the year to thank you and tell you how much I have loved being in your class.”

“Why, thank you Becky.  That is a very nice thing to say and it warms the cockles of an old teacher’s heart to know he is appreciated.”

“Uh, you’re welcome.  I also hoped you could help me with a couple of questions I have been turning over in my mind as we studied the events of the last several decades this year.”

“I am happy to help if I can.  What’s on your mind?”

“Well,” Becky said so softly her voice was almost inaudible, “it’s about The Final Solution.”

“What about it?”

“Umm.  This year we learned that from its very beginning the Party opposed the Jewish-materialistic spirit, and when the Great Führer came to power in the 1930’s, one of the first things he did was start rooting the Jews out of positions of influence.  Then, early in the Great Unification War that began in September 1939, Reichsführer Himmler implemented The Final Solution to completely eliminate the world’s population of about 15 million Jews.  The Final Solution was deemed complete in July 1951 when the last known pockets of Jews were finally tracked down and eliminated.”

“Very impressive Becky.  With your grades I am not surprised, but it looks like you really have been absorbing history this year.”

“Thank you, Mr. Johnson.”

“So, what’s your question?”

“Well, um, I guess it is not so much a question as it is a doubt.”

“What are you doubting?”

Becky paused before answering.  She was obviously nervous, and Johnson was beginning to suspect why.  She took a deep breath and said, “Can I tell you something in confidence?”

“Of course, you can.”

“Well, um, you see,” Becky stammered in nervous agitation, “I know the Party requires Christians to adhere to Party-approved Positive Christianity.  But my parents adhere to Evangelical Christianity, and the other day we were talking about The Final Solution, because it was part of my lesson.  And . . . are you sure this is confidential?  I wouldn’t want my dad to get in trouble.”

“It’s OK Becky.  You can trust me.  This conversation is protected by student-teacher confidentiality.  Besides, you are one of my brightest students and I like you very much.  I would never do anything to hurt you or your family.”

“Oh, I’m so glad to hear that, because I really do need to talk this through with someone.”

“What is it you need to talk through, Becky?”

“Well, um, my dad, in this conversation, he said he thought The Final Solution was evil.”

There it was.  There was nothing for it now.  The cat was out of the bag.  Becky had implicated her father in sedition.  Johnson did not know the man, but he genuinely cared for his students, and he hoped he could take Becky by the metaphorical hand and lead her back to the true path.

“And what do you think Becky?”

“Well, I don’t know.  My dad and I talked about it a long time, and his arguments really has my head spinning.”

“Let’s talk about those arguments.  What does he say; why does he think The Final Solution was evil?”

“His argument is pretty simple really.  He says that killing a person for no other reason than that he has a different ethnic background than you is self-evidently evil.  It follows that killing 15 million innocent men, women and children for no other reason than that they were Jews is genocide, which is perhaps the greatest evil there is.”

Johnson was silent as he contemplated the radical extent of the anti-Party sedition that had just been revealed to him.  Becky’s father had as much as accused the Great Führer of committing “the greatest evil there is.”  It was breathtaking; he was momentarily stunned into silence.

“Did you remind him that no one at any level of government has raised the slightest question about The Final Solution for over 65 years, and I see no sign at all that is about to change?”

“Of course.  He said it doesn’t matter.”

“It doesn’t matter?  How in the world could that not matter?”

“He says that morality is not determined by headcount.  He says a moral choice either conforms to a transcendent objective moral standard or it does not.  And if it does not, even if every other person on the planet disagreed with him about whether The Final Solution was evil, he would be right, and they would be wrong.”

“Well, I hope you can see that it is pretty darned arrogant for him to set his own moral standard up as the only correct one.”

“He says it is not his standard, but God’s standard.  God commands us not to murder, and he says that every one of the 15 million Jews killed in the implementation of The Final Solution was murdered.”

Johnson’s head began to swim at the implications of what he was hearing, but with an effort of will he pushed that aside and said, “Murdered?  Really?  Murder is a legal conclusion.  Surely you know that The Final Solution was perfectly legal.  It was sanctioned by the duly-instituted governmental authorities everywhere it was implemented.  How could it have been immoral if it was perfectly legal?”

“That’s what I said, but dad said an action, even a legal action by a government official, that transgresses God’s law is still evil.”

“Well there you go; we finally get to the bottom of it.  If this God your dad talks about does not exist, then his law does not exist, right?”

“Sure, that seems obvious.”

“Beginning with Darwin in 1859 and continuing up to the present day, science has been advancing and religion has been retreating.  We have reached the point where science has displaced religion in every area of inquiry.  Science has finally proved that God does not exist.”

“Oh, I didn’t think about that.  But if God does not exist, where did the universe some from?  Why is there something instead of nothing?  I don’t see how the universe can account for its own existence.  Something creating itself from nothing does not make sense to me.”

“That’s a valid objection, but fortunately there is an answer.  Our greatest scientists tell us that because the laws of nature – like the law of gravity – exist, the universe can indeed create itself from nothing.”

“The laws of nature are something, not nothing.  Where did they came from?”

“Another good question.  And just this year one of our most famous physicists wrote a book answering it.  In a nutshell, he said the laws of physics are a brute fact that we simply must accept as a given.”

“OK.  So what you’re telling me is that science has proven God does not exist.”

“Right.”

“And a transcendent objective moral standard like the one my dad talks about can exist only if God created it.

“Right.”

“And since God does not exist, a transcendent objective moral standard does not exist.”

“Excellent.  You’ve got it.”

“But morality sure feels like a real thing.”

“Of course, morality is a real thing.  I never suggested otherwise.”

“Oh, I’m sorry.  I misunderstood.  If morality is real, where did it come from?”

“Here again, science has the answer.  Science has proved there is no God.  It follows there is nothing in the universe but particles in motion.  And from this it follows there is no objective morality.  Another of our greatest scientists says, the universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”

“But, Mr. Johnson, that sounds like morality can’t exist.”

“You’re right if by ‘morality’ you mean the sort of ‘objective transcendent morality’ your dad talks about.  But that is not the only kind of morality there is.  You see, humans sit at the top of a grand evolutionary pyramid that has been built over billions of years.  And over the eons our ancestors developed by trial and error certain behaviors that helped them to survive.  Today, we call those survival-beneficial behaviors “morality.”

“And The Final Solution was one of those survival beneficial behaviors?”

“Well, it’s not quite that simple.  Science tells us that there are many kinds of good and evil, all determined by the norms in the society in which one happens to live.  In the case of The Final Solution, in a competition of war, German society prevailed over all other societies and therefore the moral prescriptions of German society are followed all over the world.  In other words – and listen very carefully to what I am about to say Becky – there is no place anyone can stand from which to judge the moral ideals of German society, because we are all in German society, and German society is where, by definition, all moral ideals come from.  In other words, The Final Solution was deemed good by German society, and it was therefore, by definition, good.”

“So it all turns on the fact that God does not exist.  Even if my dad feels very strongly that killing 15 million men, women and children for no reason other than that they were Jews is evil, he is wrong, because The Final Solution was good by definition, because it was accepted by society and there is no place outside of society to judge what it accepts as good.”

“Exactly.  I am glad you are getting it.”

“Thank you, Mr. Johnson.  It is such a relief to know that science has proved that the Party’s actions are always, by definition, moral, since the Party controls society.”

“Any time Becky.”

“And again, Mr. Johnson, I would hate for my dad to get in trouble.  This whole conversation is just between us, right?”

“Of course; set your mind at ease on that score.”

“Thank you again.  I will see you Monday.”  Becky smiled a little smile and seemed to heave a small sigh of relief as she turned and walked to the door.  Johnson watched her leave, and as the door closed behind her, he reached for his phone to call the Brooklyn division of the Gestapo.  “‘Greatest evil there is,’” Johnson murmured as he dialed.  “We’ll see what you think about that when your door is kicked down tonight.”

Comments
RodW @ 46: If we removed prison time for all crimes (but maintained a police force), would people be no more likely to do illegal things? You're also assuming that the only motivation is fear and torture. A genuine love of God can inspire one to further develop their morality to a higher standard, as well. Some people just need a nudge to say "hey, this is wrong", one the world may not be offering. Especially if we reduce the brain to a stochastic process, introducing such a concept will most definitely push the mean towards morality.LocalMinimum
March 6, 2018
March
03
Mar
6
06
2018
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT
Seversky @ 28:
If we can’t ground ‘ought’ in ‘is’ then how can He and if He can’t then how is His morality on any firmer ground than ours?
If we take God to be more fundamental than gravity, then we take God's morality to be more fundamental than physical law. Thus, it's His show. But, if God created all that we know, then surely He has a much larger perspective on what "is", one that's impossible to share with us, especially if we consider ourselves naught but clever monkeys. Thus, it's fallacious to conflate His "is" with our "is".LocalMinimum
March 6, 2018
March
03
Mar
6
06
2018
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT
Rod is on a roll:
Morals transcend any individual. They are the collective morals of a large group of people.
It follows that Rod would believe that Becky's teacher, Mr.Johnson, is the hero of my story and Becky's dad is the villain. Well, at least you are being consistent with your comment at 22.Barry Arrington
March 6, 2018
March
03
Mar
6
06
2018
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT
Atheist RodW at 22: "I would be OK with genocide if everyone else was." RodW at 45: "Morality certainly exists without God."Barry Arrington
March 6, 2018
March
03
Mar
6
06
2018
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT
Imagine a society with a law that required wives to love their husbands on pain of torture and death. You meet a man from that country who comments to you ( or another man if you dont have a wife) that your wife certainly seemed to love you but she couldnt really love you since there was no possibility of torture and execution hanging over her head. At least she couldn't possibly love you as much as his wife loved him since his wife was back in his country where that law applied. Do you see where I'm going with this?RodW
March 6, 2018
March
03
Mar
6
06
2018
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT
Morality certainly exists without God. I'd suggest that if there was an all powerful God that would actually make it harder for us to be moral. The disagreement here concerns the definition of morality. The religious volk think that morals must be rigid laws passed down from an authority figure. I think that morals cant be that or they cease to me morals and become meme rules. Morals transcend any individual. They are the collective morals of a large group of people. They are the rules that those people inherit. They are rooted in our fundamental human nature but are informed by culture, individual psychology etc. When times are good we move in the direction of our better angels. When times are bad we more in the opposite direction. I will grant that in bad times the morals of a minority of religious people is a buffer against slipping too far backwards. There cannot be a God, King or Emperor who bestows morality on people. At best a ruler can punish people for being bad (according to the rulers definition) but that doesnt create morality and probably doesn't create an overall more moral society.RodW
March 6, 2018
March
03
Mar
6
06
2018
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT
DATCG
He also flooded the entire world according to scripture. So you can get mad at him for that as well
I think you've missed the point of the argument. JVC is no more angry at God for flooding the earth than he is at Governor Tarkin for blowing up Alderan.RodW
March 6, 2018
March
03
Mar
6
06
2018
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT
I see the A-Mats still want to talk about Canaan 3,000 years ago instead of Europe within living memory. Telling. A-Mat: "Maybe if we just ignore that 500 pound gorilla he will go away."Barry Arrington
March 6, 2018
March
03
Mar
6
06
2018
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT
DATCG
You don’t have to like the decision to wipe out tribes that murdered innocent babies by burning them to death. Many don’t. You most likely will not like the future either about this world according to God.
But God could have simply wiped them out himself. Is commanding the Israelites to personally kill woman and children with a sword "the world according to God?" Again, we now know this is highly traumatic experience and can cause severe problems integrating back into society and even one's own family. Yet, God supposedly demanded the Israelites personally do so, despite his ability to just make them disappear from the face of the earth. Assuming Yahweh was actually the same "God" that supposedly made the universes appear of out nothing, making the Canaanites disappear would be child's play, right? So, even if we assume they deserved it, why make the Israelites do it?
From 2016, Putin killing innocent children…
And, I've completely ignored the question of why God demanded them to kill innocent children as well. You find Putin killing children troubling but not God demanding it of the Israelites?critical rationalist
March 6, 2018
March
03
Mar
6
06
2018
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT
From 2016, Putin killing innocent children... https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/deaths-innocent-syrian-children-blamed-9008389 This is our day. Anyone doing anything to stop it? Did Obama or German's Chancellor? England? France? More dead, Feb 2018... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/20/its-not-a-war-its-a-massacre-scores-killed-in-syrian-enclave-eastern-ghouta and today, no one is stopping it including Trump. Why not? Because they all fear a larger war. So more innocents die.DATCG
March 6, 2018
March
03
Mar
6
06
2018
04:45 AM
4
04
45
AM
PDT
The history is long and complex in that region between warring tribes. There were wars going on between the tribes as well. Skirmishes between them and Israeli tribes at the time. Not all were wiped out, many were allowed to stay. Some moved on. But, they were not living in peace together at the time it was ordered for that specific tribe. .DATCG
March 6, 2018
March
03
Mar
6
06
2018
04:41 AM
4
04
41
AM
PDT
JVL, It's only one issue listed in the Old Testament. I listed the others as well including burning children as sacrifices in fire. You don't have to like the decision to wipe out tribes that murdered innocent babies by burning them to death. Many don't. You most likely will not like the future either about this world according to God. He also flooded the entire world according to scripture. So you can get mad at him for that as well.DATCG
March 6, 2018
March
03
Mar
6
06
2018
04:33 AM
4
04
33
AM
PDT
Seversky, re: Luther, he was wrong. It only takes a small amount of reading to know at that point, he failed to follow Yeshua's teachings in the New Testament. Luther did not follow Christ in his declarations towards the Jewish people. This is fundamentally why you cannot put Communism/Materialsim and Islam in the same basket as Christ teachings. And why a Reform could take place over the failures of leaders through the centuries. The issue so many conflate and often forget is that fallen men, in this case Luther often fall. In his arrogance, he disregarded well known teachings of the apostle Paul and the words of Christ himself. While Luther did much to correct at that time corruption in the church, he too made mistakes and showed bias and bigotry. Yet that is not what Christ taught. So, you're actually showing once again, it is people who fail. Again, was Truman evil for dropping the bomb in your estimation on Japan, twice? Or, should he allowed tens of thousands of more Americans die? Communist in Soviet Union practiced pograms against the Jews and there's nothing in Communist Manifesto to stop them. Anti-Semitism ran rampant in Soviet Union. Approximately 2 million Jewish people left after the Berlin wall fell and moved to Israel, escaped to Europe or America as soon as they possibly could. Islam's leader preached hatred of Jews and Christians, changed historical and biblical narrations about Christ. He was illiterate and commanded his followers to kill, destroy and take slaves, including women as sex slaves. As well as one of his first acts was to chop off the heads of Jewish tribe. To this day, the fundamentalist - ISIS for example follow the commands of Mohammed. While there are peaceful Muslims across the globe, there can be no reformation based upon Mohammed's teachings. Refrom in Islam must come despite his teachings. Whereas the teachings of Christ led people to reformation within themselves and the church over the centuries after removing corrupt leaders in each successive generation. Today, a large part of the church today in America as a result backs Israel and the Jewish people. And they show it in their support to the people directly either with health care and donations to the poor, or in defense of their right to exist as a nation. Morality in a fallen world means you will continue to see great evil, either from Russia and Syria, today, or other nations in the future. China is closing itself up again, taking away citizens rights to freedom in the press and social media. Christians still suffer there. Question Seversky, Does it bother you over 500,000 people, women and children died as a result of OBama's toppling of nations in the Middle East? He created it, instigated it and then walked away from it allowing ISIS to grow, women and girls to die or be traded as sex slaves. Over 500,000 people in the last 8 years in Syria and Iraq. It was his direct actions that led to the fall of Libya and overthrow of Egypt, then to Syria, where he created a disaster still ongoing today where many are dying as the hands of Putin, Iran and Syria. So even well meaning people or those not so, still kill today or allow great numbers of people to die as a result of foreign policy.DATCG
March 6, 2018
March
03
Mar
6
06
2018
04:07 AM
4
04
07
AM
PDT
First, it was theirs to begin with. He gave the land to the tribes of Jacob prior to them going into Egypt. The land of Abraham was their inheritance. THEY LEFT! But they had the right to come back anytime and slaughter all and sundry who occupied empty land? Really?JVL
March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
11:29 PM
11
11
29
PM
PDT
RodW @ 10, >If the Nazis had won Christianity would have probably incorporated the idea ... I think Barry has the more realistic take on how things would have gone. Hitler planned to eliminate/eviscerate Christianity, and Martin Bormann was strongly anti-Christian, stating that Nazism was not compatible with any other system. There wouldn't have been any sort of Christianity left to do the "incorporating".EDTA
March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
08:13 PM
8
08
13
PM
PDT
TWSYF@32, actually I've read almost everything he's written, from "One Day...", to "Cancer Ward", up to and including "Gulag 1,2,and3", his Harvard Commencement Address, and his Nobel acceptance speech, "One Word of Truth". (In the Harvard speech he drags Kissinger across the coals for, 'Detente'.) I've always admired the great man, up until his return to Russia, and his support of, Russian Nationalism, and a rather beefed up (by Putin), Russian Orthodoxy. I'm glad you like Solzhinitsyn, it means we could indeed have a beer together, without it being reduced to a shouting match, Heh:)rvb8
March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PDT
For one thing, without God in a purely physical world, there is no free will. No free will, no choice, no responsibility, no morality.
Let me help you with that...
For one thing, without God in the current conception of a purely physical world, there is no free will. No free will, no choice, no responsibility, no morality.
IOW, underlying your claim is the idea that the initial conditions are somehow fundamental to physics. And that's parochial (uncessarlly narrow in scope.)
2.5 What is the initial state? The prevailing conception regards the initial state of the physical world as a fundamental part of its constitution, and we therefore hope and expect that state to be specified by some fundamental, elegant law of physics. But at present there are no exact theories of what the initial state was. Thermodynamics suggests that it was a ‘zero-entropy state’, but as I said, we have no exact theory of what that means. Cosmology suggests that it was homogeneous and isotropic, but whether the observed inhomogeneities (such as galaxies) could have evolved from quantum fluctuations in a homogeneous initial state is controversial. In the constructor-theoretic conception, the initial state is not fundamental. It is an emergent consequence of the fundamental truths that laws of physics specify, namely which tasks are or are not possible. For example, given a set of laws of motion, what exactly is implied about the initial state by the practical feasibility of building (good approximations to) a universal computer several billion years later may be inelegant and intractably complex to state explicitly, yet may follow logically from elegant constructor-theoretic laws about information and computation (see Sections 2.6 and 2.8 below). The intuitive appeal of the prevailing conception may be nothing more than a legacy from an earlier era of philosophy: First, the idea that the initial state is fundamental corresponds to the ancient idea of divine creation happening at the beginning of time. And second, the idea that the initial state might be a logical consequence of anything deeper raises a spectre of teleological explanation, which is anathema because it resembles explanation through divine intentions. But neither of those (somewhat contradictory) considerations could be a substantive objection to a fruitful constructor theory, if one could be developed.
critical rationalist
March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PDT
@Barry Not sure what else I can add that wasn't in the excerpt or essay itself. Did you read it? The teacher and student are justificationists. They are both arguing over which "final solution" is authoritative: God's or the Führer’s. They share the same flawed quest for justification of their beliefs. Example? Apparently, genocide is OK if it comes from the right source. God supposedly wiped out the entire world with a flood, then asked his own people to kill the current inhabitants of the land he promised them. And, apparently, to punish them for him. However, we now know that war can cause great trauma to solders - especially when civilians are targeted - as It desensitizes them to violence against woman and children. And this in turn can impact their interactions with their own people and families. So, why didn't God just wipe them from the earth? Apparently we have more moral knowledge that God? Or was Yahweh just a tribal "god" that "told people" to wage war against another people for their land?critical rationalist
March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
07:44 PM
7
07
44
PM
PDT
rvb8 @ 31: No way you have read anything by Solzhenitsyn. If you did you could never continue to be a leftist a/mat. I am actually just having a little bit of fun with you, rvb8.Truth Will Set You Free
March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT
I see I have been accused of 'intellectual arrogance' TWSYF@12, and an ammount of 'snobbery' by LM@7. My crime? Having read some books on a theme Barry is attempting (the victory of the Reich in WWII, and its consequences.) Not much of a crime is it? Enjoying good historical fiction I mean? And pointing out Barry's attempt at a short essay, or story, on the same theme was extremely poor, verging on irritating, is not 'snobbery', it is criticism. (Solzhenitsyn's, 'August 14', and 'Lenin in Zurich', are also superb. Does reading and enjoying these make me a snob? If you believe so, I genuinely feel sorry for you.) I simply noted that historical fiction requires an intimate knowledge of the subject, and participants, and of possible consequences, the history; Barry's is laughable. Take this example from T. LeHaye's, and J.B. Jenkins, odious attempt at writing in the 'Left Behind' series of books. Not historical fiction sure, but similar in that it is trying to anticipate how real events might have run their course, and their consequences; "The blood continued to rise. Millions of birds flocked into the area and feasted on the remains...and the winepress was trampled outside the city, and blood came out of the winepress, up to the horses bridle, for one thousand six hundred furlongs." Indeed! Barry's attempt is certainly not as Old Testamentest as this woeful effort, but I believe he's aiming for th same sour effect. And what's truly amazing is that some of you applaud; weird.rvb8
March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT
To avoid the Judeo-Christian apologetics, you can use Islam. With their understanding of God, the present day terror attacks and the medieval mass killings in Arabia were lawful. Those actions we have no problem condemning as immoral from our Christian perspective, yet were carried out in the context of theism. So belief in God alone is insufficient. Per the Euthyphro dilemma, the notion of objective morality is independent of whether it is enforced by a God. If God told us to carry out the Islamic terror attacks or Luther's progroms, we would rightly rebel against Him. There is a perception of objective right and wrong that transcends our philosophies and religions and gods by which we judge them.EricMH
March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT
Sev: If morality is an illusion without God, how is it any the less an illusion with God?
For one thing, without God in a purely physical world, there is no free will. No free will, no choice, no responsibility, no morality.Origenes
March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT
reductio @ 24
Barry’s story is crystaline in it’s clarity. Without God, morality is an illusion – an opinion – nothing more.
If morality is an illusion without God, how is it any the less an illusion with God? If human moral beliefs are just opinion, how are God's moral prescriptions anything other than His opinions? Where does He set out a detailed explanation or rationale for His pronouncements? If we can't ground 'ought' in 'is' then how can He and if He can't then how is His morality on any firmer ground than ours?Seversky
March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT
RodW @ 22
Well if I lived in a world where everyone thought it genocide was ok I assume I’d think it was ok too.
Unless you were one of the potential victims of genocide. Then you probably wouldn't have thought it was okay.Seversky
March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT
RodW @ 10
If the Nazis had won Christianity would have probably incorporated the idea that the Jews were punished because after 2000 years they still hadn’t accepted Jesus Christ.
European Christianity need not have waited until the Nazis appeared on the scene. Martin Luther published On The Jews And Their Lies in 1543. Anti-Semitism was well-established in Christian Europe long before the Nazis or Charles Darwin appeared on the scene.Seversky
March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT
DATCG @ 18: Good summary.LocalMinimum
March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT
Barry's story is crystaline in it's clarity. Without God, morality is an illusion - an opinion - nothing more. Of course an atheist can "be" moral; more accurately - an atheist can conform to an understanding of certain moral principles but if those principles have any intrinsic meanging, they must have been at least distantly derived from a theistic source. This is what WLC means when he says an atheist can be moral - he can, by borrowing from the theists (however unwittingly). Atheism always ends in Nihilism. No God = No Meaning. No Meaning = No Morality. I know that such a forumulation will be loudly denied by the Naturalists but it is unavoidable. That this is not seen and understood by those who hold to a god-less position is baffling to me. Tell me your anti-theistic life has "meaning" and I'll ask you from whence it comes and if it ultimately ends in "nothing" then your "meaning" is an illusion and Nihilism is your creed whether you recognize it or not. Edit: I would go to say the following to any atheists who find this kind of thinking simplistic or flawed: I have spoken with many atheists who are desperately searching for meaning; some who have even expressed a form of envy that the Christian so easily finds it in a belief system that the atheist cannot (or will not) subscribe to. I submit that your hunger is evidence that there is indeed an answer; a grail for your quest. If you still seek - take an honest look at Christianity from a source with intellectual rigor and philosophical training. Read WLC, or Plantinga, C.S. Lewis, or the Gospel of John. Don't let a straw-man, unschooled, watered-down version of Christianity that you may have encountered (or imagined) be the windmill that you tilt against. Your quest has a reason - ultimately to be found in God alone. /end sermonreductio
March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT
Rod,
Well if I lived in a world where everyone thought it genocide was ok I assume I’d think it was ok too.
Kudos to you Rod. At least you have the courage to take your logic to its ultimate conclusion. Barry Arrington
March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT
OK, Well if I lived in a world where everyone thought it genocide was ok I assume I'd think it was ok too. But I cant help but to think that in the back of my mind I'd know it was wrong, and I suspect Nazis knew it was wrong. Its wrong because of the basic logic of the golden rule. We can imagine ourselves in the position and we recoil from it. We can also see that that adds misery to the world and our goal should be the opposite.RodW
March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT
RodW @ 20:
Is RodW willing to say that if Nazis had won genocide would be morally justifiable? No I think genocide is immoral.
And now after all of your attempted distractions and efforts to change the subject, we get to the point of the story (which you knew all along including when you lied and said you did not). If you lived in a world in which everyone else celebrated The Final Solution, two questions follow: 1. On what ground would you justify the statement "I think it is immoral"? 2. Would you be right and everyone else wrong? Prediction: Rod will turn tail and run away from these questions. Very few A-Mats have sufficient courage to answer them.Barry Arrington
March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply