Rights. Real Things or Soothing Noises?

_{Barry Arrington

July 4, 2020

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

A friend writes on Facebook:

“Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” and “with liberty and justice for all” still seem like pretty good concepts to build a country around. Lets start living it. Happy 4th everyone!

To which I responded that I agree wholeheartedly. But I would add that both of the quotations have context that is essential. Where do the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness come from? Men are “endowed by their creator” with those rights. And we are a nation “under God,” with liberty and justice for all.

All politics is downstream from culture. Culture is downstream from shared views about fundamental metaphysical ideas. And ideas about the existence of God are the most fundamental of all. Richard Dawkins, the world’s most famous atheist, 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.”

Dawkins is wrong about that. The universe we observe is full of evil. But evil can exist only if good — of which evil is the privation — also exists. And good can exist only if God exists. I have spent decades debating these issues. Today, I am more firmly convinced than ever that our rights are secure only if they rest on a foundation of God’s existence. For if God does not exist, Dawkins is surely right and all of this rights talk amounts to nothing but soothing noises one animal makes to another.

Some might respond: We can have good without God. Of course, that depends on what you mean by “good.” If “good” means only “that which at a given point in time a particular society calls good,” then a 21st century liberal democracy is “good.” But so is a 15th century Aztec society that captured, enslaved, and ritually sacrificed members of other tribes. We can call Aztec human sacrifice evil and the principles of the Declaration good in any meaningful sense of those words only if there is an objective standard of measure by which to judge between the two. And that standard exists only if a God who has endowed His image bearers with certain inalienable rights exists.

And thankfully He does. As Sam said, happy 4th!

Comments

Folks, and yet, this is still on the table as inescapable:
We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. Inescapable, as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, so also to fairness and justice etc. Such built in law is not invented by parliaments or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law.
KFkairosfocus_{July 13, 2020
July
07
Jul
13
13
2020
02:37 AM
2
02
37
AM
PDT}

Matspirit, you really should get a copy of the Manga Bible, I think you would really appreciate the framing of some of the parables in it.Retired Physicist_{July 12, 2020
July
07
Jul
12
12
2020
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT}

MatSpirit, I never said I was a Christian nor am I arguing from any sort of theistic perspective. I said the opposite. You're a gazelle and I'm a lion. Now convince me not to kill you when I'm hungry. "We normally don’t think most animals are morally capable of moral judgement. Humans are. " We lions laugh at you silly humans who think your "morality" is something we need to bother about.mike1962_{July 12, 2020
July
07
Jul
12
12
2020
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT}

Mike1962 @ 78 We're talking about moral duties here, not enforcement of moral codes. You bring up an interesting point, though: What are our moral duties to non-human animals. Sensations and emotions are pretty basic. I think we can safely assume that all mammals and birds plus many other animals feel pain, fear death and know fear and terror more or less like we do. So what are our moral responsibilities to other animals? Mike: “... I would kill your mother, father, wife, children and livestock if I were hungry enough. Why not?” Absolute Christian morality at it's finest. “Thou shalt not kill!” unless you're REALLY hungry. Mike: “... you have given me no reason to not be the lion that I am. Especially when I’m hungry.” We normally don't think most animals are morally capable of moral judgement. Humans are. Religious humans – well, Absolutely Moral Christians are somewhat questionable here. So what do you think of that old 'Turn the other cheek' wheeze? Querius @ 81: Psalm 137 is not asking the Babylonians how they'd like it if somebody treated them as badly as they've treated the Hebrews, they're telling the world how happy they would be if they could smash their children on a rock: 8 O daughter of Babylon, you devastator! Happy shall he be who requites you with what you have done to us! 9 Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock! Querius @ 82: And yet, God wrapped himself in a human body to be tortured to death to pay the price for all the sin and pain you caused to others, handing you the opportunity for forgiveness. Riiiight! I can almost see God's thought processes. “Hmm, I condemned Adam and Eve and ALL of their descendants to eternal life in Hell because they disobeyed my distinct order and learned the difference between right and wrong. I feel kind of bad about that now and I'd like to forgive them, but if I changed my mind, I'd no longer be unchanging … wait, I know! I'll have a son through one of those humans and torture HIM to death, thus freeing me from my vow! I'll let the theologians work out the details of how and why I did it that way.” The whole atonement story was the best explanation the earliest Christians could come up with to explain why their savior had died at the hands of the Romans. Barry @ 84: The Golden Rule goes back at least to Confucius c. 500 BC. Confucius claimed it went back to at least 1000 BC or even later. You can use it to judge God, but He doesn't do so well. Barry @ 87: One of the definitions of “objective” is that nearly everybody can agree about some things. Very very few people want their families murdered or their hearts cut out, even if God is allegedly ordering it. Upright @ 89: Querious is going to have to tell the truth if he expects me to believe him. See my reply to him above.MatSpirit_{July 11, 2020
July
07
Jul
11
11
2020
08:04 PM
8
08
04
PM
PDT}

. Yo Mung. I hope you are safe and well. :)Upright BiPed_{July 10, 2020
July
07
Jul
10
10
2020
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT}

Some things never change.Mung_{July 10, 2020
July
07
Jul
10
10
2020
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT}

.
That’s not what I wrote.
Let me ask a question: Are you expecting Matty to accept your clarification and to not come back time and time again with his loaded interpretation? Oh, the irony.Upright BiPed_{July 10, 2020
July
07
Jul
10
10
2020
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT}

Kairosfocus: I'll just drop it then. Interesting that the Bill of Rights in England is listed as being from 1688 when history clearly states it was drawn up in 1689 . . . perhaps some 'date' it from the day James II fled to the continent. Just for the edification of others I shall reproduce some statements about the act:
May 24 [1689]– The Bill of Rights establishes constitutional monarchy in England, but with Roman Catholics barred from the throne. Parliament also passes the Act of Toleration, protecting Protestants but with Roman Catholics intentionally excluded. This effectively concludes the Glorious Revolution.
The Glorious Revolution being the move from James II to William and Mary's reign as monarchs. Notice the exclusion of Catholics; I guess religious tolerance only went so far!
The Bill of Rights 1689, also known as the Bill of Rights 1688, is a landmark Act in the constitutional law of England that sets out certain basic civil rights and clarifies who would be next to inherit the Crown. It received the Royal Assent on 16 December 1689 and is a restatement in statutory form of the Declaration of Right presented by the Convention Parliament to William III and Mary II in February 1689, inviting them to become joint sovereigns of England. The Bill of Rights lays down limits on the powers of the monarch and sets out the rights of Parliament, including the requirement for regular parliaments, free elections, and freedom of speech in Parliament. It sets out certain rights of individuals including the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment and reestablished the right of Protestants to have arms for their defence within the rule of law. It also includes no right of taxation without Parliament’s agreement. Furthermore, the Bill of Rights described and condemned several misdeeds of James II of England. These ideas reflected those of the political philosopher John Locke and they quickly became popular in England It also sets out – or, in the view of its drafters, restates – certain constitutional requirements of the Crown to seek the consent of the people, as represented in Parliament. In the United Kingdom, the Bill of Rights is further accompanied by Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, the Habeas Corpus Act 1679 and the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 as some of the basic documents of the uncodified British constitution. A separate but similar document, the Claim of Right Act 1689, applies in Scotland. The Bill of Rights 1689 was one of the models for the United States Bill of Rights of 1789, the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 and the European Convention on Human Rights of 1950 Along with the Act of Settlement 1701, the Bill of Rights is still in effect in all Commonwealth realms.
Here's some of its provisions: The pretended power of suspending the laws and dispensing with laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal; The commission for ecclesiastical causes is illegal; Levying taxes without grant of Parliament is illegal; It is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal; Keeping a standing army in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law; Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law; Election of members of Parliament ought to be free; The freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament; Excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted; Jurors in trials for high treason ought to be freeholders; Promises of fines and forfeitures before conviction are illegal and void; For redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws, Parliaments ought to be held frequently. It's easy to see that some of this was influential on the American founding fathers.JVL_{July 10, 2020
July
07
Jul
10
10
2020
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT}

KF, we should give props to MatSpirit for intuitively recognizing the transcending grounding of the Golden Rule by recognizing that is is objective. Still he gets only partial marks, because while recognizing the objectivity of the rule, he denies the only basis by which a rule can be objective. Amazing.Barry Arrington_{July 10, 2020
July
07
Jul
10
10
2020
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT}

BA, prezactly. We have mutinous sailors vying for the helm with little understanding, while despising the seemingly useless stargazer muttering to himself. KFkairosfocus_{July 10, 2020
July
07
Jul
10
10
2020
04:43 AM
4
04
43
AM
PDT}

PS: I beg to remind us of Plato's warning:
It is not too hard to figure out that our civilisation is in deep trouble and is most likely headed for shipwreck. (And of course, that sort of concern is dismissed as “apocalyptic,” or neurotic pessimism that refuses to pause and smell the roses.) Plato’s Socrates spoke to this sort of situation, long since, in the ship of state parable in The Republic, Bk VI:
>>[Soc.] I perceive, I said, that you are vastly amused at having plunged me into such a hopeless discussion; but now hear the parable, and then you will be still more amused at the meagreness of my imagination: for the manner in which the best men are treated in their own States is so grievous that no single thing on earth is comparable to it; and therefore, if I am to plead their cause, I must have recourse to fiction, and put together a figure made up of many things, like the fabulous unions of goats and stags which are found in pictures. Imagine then a fleet or a ship in which there is a captain [–> often interpreted, ship’s owner] who is taller and stronger than any of the crew, but he is a little deaf and has a similar infirmity in sight, and his knowledge of navigation is not much better. [= The people own the community and in the mass are overwhelmingly strong, but are ill equipped on the whole to guide, guard and lead it] The sailors are quarrelling with one another about the steering – every one is of opinion that he has a right to steer [= selfish ambition to rule and dominate], though he has never learned the art of navigation and cannot tell who taught him or when he learned, and will further assert that it cannot be taught, and they are ready to cut in pieces any one who says the contrary. They throng about the captain, begging and praying him to commit the helm to them [–> kubernetes, steersman, from which both cybernetics and government come in English]; and if at any time they do not prevail, but others are preferred to them, they kill the others or throw them overboard [ = ruthless contest for domination of the community], and having first chained up the noble captain’s senses with drink or some narcotic drug [ = manipulation and befuddlement, cf. the parable of the cave], they mutiny and take possession of the ship and make free with the stores; thus, eating and drinking, they proceed on their voyage in such a manner as might be expected of them [–> Cf here Luke’s subtle case study in Ac 27]. Him who is their partisan and cleverly aids them in their plot for getting the ship out of the captain’s hands into their own whether by force or persuasion [–> Nihilistic will to power on the premise of might and manipulation making ‘right’ ‘truth’ ‘justice’ ‘rights’ etc], they compliment with the name of sailor, pilot, able seaman, and abuse the other sort of man, whom they call a good-for-nothing; but that the true pilot must pay attention to the year and seasons and sky and stars and winds, and whatever else belongs to his art, if he intends to be really qualified for the command of a ship, and that he must and will be the steerer, whether other people like or not-the possibility of this union of authority with the steerer’s art has never seriously entered into their thoughts or been made part of their calling. Now in vessels which are in a state of mutiny and by sailors who are mutineers, how will the true pilot be regarded? Will he not be called by them a prater, a star-gazer, a good-for-nothing? [Ad.] Of course, said Adeimantus. [Soc.] Then you will hardly need, I said, to hear the interpretation of the figure, which describes the true philosopher in his relation to the State [ --> here we see Plato's philosoppher-king emerging]; for you understand already. [Ad.] Certainly. [Soc.] Then suppose you now take this parable to the gentleman who is surprised at finding that philosophers have no honour in their cities; explain it to him and try to convince him that their having honour would be far more extraordinary. [Ad.] I will. [Soc.] Say to him, that, in deeming the best votaries of philosophy to be useless to the rest of the world, he is right; but also tell him to attribute their uselessness to the fault of those who will not use them, and not to themselves. The pilot should not humbly beg the sailors to be commanded by him –that is not the order of nature; neither are ‘the wise to go to the doors of the rich’ –the ingenious author of this saying told a lie –but the truth is, that, when a man is ill, whether he be rich or poor, to the physician he must go, and he who wants to be governed, to him who is able to govern. [--> the issue of competence and character as qualifications to rule] The ruler who is good for anything ought not to beg his subjects to be ruled by him [ --> down this road lies the modern solution: a sound, well informed people will seek sound leaders, who will not need to manipulate or bribe or worse, and such a ruler will in turn be checked by the soundness of the people, cf. US DoI, 1776]; although the present governors of mankind are of a different stamp; they may be justly compared to the mutinous sailors, and the true helmsmen to those who are called by them good-for-nothings and star-gazers. [Ad.] Precisely so, he said. [Soc] For these reasons, and among men like these, philosophy, the noblest pursuit of all, is not likely to be much esteemed by those of the opposite faction [--> the sophists, the Demagogues, Alcibiades and co, etc]; not that the greatest and most lasting injury is done to her by her opponents, but by her own professing followers, the same of whom you suppose the accuser to say, that the greater number of them are arrant rogues, and the best are useless; in which opinion I agreed [--> even among the students of the sound state (here, political philosophy and likely history etc.), many are of unsound motivation and intent, so mere education is not enough, character transformation is critical]. [Ad.] Yes. [Soc.] And the reason why the good are useless has now been explained? [Ad.] True. [Soc.] Then shall we proceed to show that the corruption of the majority is also unavoidable [--> implies a need for a corruption-restraining minority providing proverbial salt and light, cf. Ac 27, as well as justifying a governing structure turning on separation of powers, checks and balances], and that this is not to be laid to the charge of philosophy any more than the other? [Ad.] By all means. [Soc.] And let us ask and answer in turn, first going back to the description of the gentle and noble nature.[ -- > note the character issue] Truth, as you will remember, was his leader, whom he followed always and in all things [ --> The spirit of truth as a marker]; failing in this, he was an impostor, and had no part or lot in true philosophy [--> the spirit of truth is a marker, for good or ill] . . . >>
(There is more than an echo of this in Acts 27, a real world case study. [Luke, a physician, was an educated Greek with a taste for subtle references.] This blog post, on soundness in policy, will also help)
The Ship of State and that of a Civilisation ought not to be trifled with without sobering consideration.kairosfocus_{July 10, 2020
July
07
Jul
10
10
2020
04:41 AM
4
04
41
AM
PDT}

MatSpirit "We CAN have atheism and an objective morality. " You say do unto other as you would have them to unto you. "Bob" says kill anyone who gets in the way of what you want. Now you prefer your rule over Bob's. Fair enough. But who is to say which of the rules is good and which is evil. You? Bob disagrees. So who is right you or Bob? Maybe you and people who agree with you (i.e., society). Bob and people who agree with him (a different society) disagree. So who is right, your society or Bob's. You argue that the Golden Rule is the basis of objective morality. No, it is not. The Golden Rule is a manifestation of objective morality grounded in the nature of God. It is very simple really. If two people disagree, and there is not an outside arbiter that is greater than either, there is, by definition, no basis on which to resolve their difference. One is not objectively superior than the other. Barry Arrington_{July 10, 2020
July
07
Jul
10
10
2020
04:39 AM
4
04
39
AM
PDT}

JVL, it is obvious from your response that you have never seriously read what has been pointed out regarding the opening up of opportunity for democratising reforms in a culture that was influenced by gospel ethics. I do admit that 1689 is the usual date but the UK Gov't archives use 1688 for the Bill of Rights arising from the glorious revolution that set the context for Locke's treatises on Gov't and the directly following line of events to 1776 and 1787. I link: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2/introduction >>Bill of Rights [1688] 1688 CHAPTER 2 1 Will and Mar Sess 2 An Act declareing the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Setleing the Succession of the Crowne. X1Whereas the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Comons assembled at Westminster lawfully fully and freely representing all the Estates of the People of this Realme did upon the thirteenth day of February in the yeare of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty eight present unto their Majesties then called and known by the Names and Stile of William and Mary Prince and Princesse of Orange being present in their proper Persons a certaine Declaration in Writeing made by the said Lords and Comons in the Words following viz . . . >> The point is, there has not been any real recognition of or genuine response to what has been put on the table. So, the talking points and questions you have raised have been little more than trollish rhetoric. Which, I have not the slightest intent to entertain. Enough has been given already, starting with the rise of printing, beginnings of a significantly literate public with enough leisure to begin to form a public with its own sufficiently informed opinions that the ferment of the reformation, the sort of teaching on legitimacy and rights to reformation and if necessary interposition of lower magistrates and revolution if mere remonstrance failed -- Vindiciae 1579 and Dutch DoI 1581 as a direct precursor to the American one, then Lex Rex and Civil War, Commonwealth, Restoration, Glorious Revolution, Locke. The meanwhile, a body of growing opinion on liberty, government and accountability as well as answers to the notorious instability of democracies was growing. You have already obviously ignored cultural buttresses that stabilise -- no wonder so many now undermine what they should guard! -- the issue of regulating evils in absence of critical mass of support for drastic reforms (and it is progressives that used to love to toss up Prohibition!), the matter of heart softening as critical mass forms. And much more. Somehow, it has not registered that 1776 was truly revolutionary, that the Declaration was a breakthrough and bound to be controversial (even as 1789 ff would give pause i/l/o Plato's Ship of State). Nor the moral courage in the draft, the insistence on self evident first truths even after painful compromise and willingness to be open to accusations of hypocrisy which were instantly made. It remains, the Emperor had no clothes and publicly stating the absurdity had impacts as far away as Japan. It is obvious that many are trifling with complex matters, issues and dynamics they don't begin to understand and imagine they could do ever so much better were they only given the helm. Those who mock and trash Jefferson -- racist, slave owner, fathering a string of children on a teen aged slave girl [the case would be laughed out of court but serves to distract, titillate and taint very well!], let's pull down his monuments as a sign of contempt and how much better we are, never mind the ghosts of 800+ million aborted children . . . -- are not worthy to unbuckle his shoes. Our collective folly is what is patent. KFkairosfocus_{July 10, 2020
July
07
Jul
10
10
2020
04:38 AM
4
04
38
AM
PDT}

Retired Physicist,
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
And yet, God wrapped himself in a human body to be tortured to death to pay the price for all the sin and pain you caused to others, handing you the opportunity for forgiveness. But let's assume that everything you accuse God of is true from your perspective--this is the God who designed and brought everything into existence: spacetime, mass-energy, time, probability, gravity, and who knows what else from Nothing (i.e. non-existence). What would be the most logical and rational conclusion a human who is familiar with frames of reference should reach through logic? -QQuerius_{July 9, 2020
July
07
Jul
9
09
2020
10:46 PM
10
10
46
PM
PDT}

MatSpirit,
Querious in 61: Are you seriously saying that if you’re treated brutally enough, it gives you the moral right to take your oppressors children and bash them open on a rock? Is this what you mean by Christian morality?
That's not what I wrote. Psalm 137 actually says the opposite--it's a lament about how the Babylonians treated Israel--a sort of "How would you like it if some other empire did that to your children?" According to history, Media Persia later destroyed the Babylonians for a taste of their own medicine. But, I'm sure that you can come up with a better example about how God must be evil based on your instinctive grasp of what's good. How about, "God must be evil because people die--no human should ever die?" Does that work for you? -QQuerius_{July 9, 2020
July
07
Jul
9
09
2020
10:30 PM
10
10
30
PM
PDT}

Is it the reopening or the morons that are causing those ire consequences?ET_{July 9, 2020
July
07
Jul
9
09
2020
09:27 PM
9
09
27
PM
PDT}

Oh heavens, the fifth graph down suggests that the reopening is having dire consequences. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/Retired Physicist_{July 9, 2020
July
07
Jul
9
09
2020
08:40 PM
8
08
40
PM
PDT}

Matspirit, I'm a lion. You're a gazelle. Did you notice all the times I mentioned the Golden Rule? Do to others as you would have them do to you / don’t do to others what you don’t want them to do to you? Lions don't know what that means. Do you want to be dragged to the top of a pyramid and held down on an altar while a priest cuts your chest open, yanks your living, beating heart out and throws it on a fire? My dog wouldn't like that. And he's just a dog. But he would eat your face off if he were hungry enough. I’m betting the answer is no. I’m also betting that 99.9 percent of all people would say no. Only under normal circumstances. Desperate times make eaters desperate. So the Golden Rule overrides the commands of the Aztec gods and we judge them and their gods to be immoral. Not if I'm hungry enough. Next question: Would you want an invading army to kill your mother, father, wife, children, livestock and you? No, but I would kill your mother, father, wife, children and livestock if I were hungry enough. Why not? Again, I’m betting you would answer no and the Golden Rule once again judges the ancient Hebrews and their god’s orders to be immoral. Only up to a point. See above. And you have given me no reason to not be the lion that I am. Especially when I'm hungry. See how that works? Well, I see how you're not grounded in your own no-objective-morality position. Not persuasive. Especially when I'm starving. We have a sound foundation for our morality without God! You have the monstrous moral mish-mash that is the Bible. Said the gazelle to the lion.mike1962_{July 9, 2020
July
07
Jul
9
09
2020
08:02 PM
8
08
02
PM
PDT}

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” It would make perfect sense if the intergalactic investigative bureau shows up and wants to arraign this criminal.Retired Physicist_{July 9, 2020
July
07
Jul
9
09
2020
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT}

MatSpirit:
We CAN have atheism and an objective morality.
No, you CAN'T. Unless by "objective morality" we get to do whatever we want- no responsibility beyond surviving. And no one cares what Dawkins says. He wasn't there and argues from ignorance.ET_{July 9, 2020
July
07
Jul
9
09
2020
07:03 PM
7
07
03
PM
PDT}

Retired Physicist: Last I heard, he was spotted showing Jim Jones how to make Kool Aide.MatSpirit_{July 9, 2020
July
07
Jul
9
09
2020
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT}

No, Barry, you do not get it. A deity is not necessary to define good. You've given us an example of the Aztecs who allowed their God to do just that and ended up slaughtering hundreds of thousands of innocent people. I've given you more examples of God endorsed evil from your own Bible which lead to the slaughtering of innocent men, women and children and dreams of smashing babies on a rock. I've also told you repeatedly that there's a much better way of discovering whether an action is good or bad: Would you like it if it was done to you? But, being a convicted Christian, your mind is closed to any criticism of your religion and your mind's filters are set up to ignore or distort beyond recognition any and all such criticism before it even reaches your consciousness. We CAN have atheism and an objective morality. In fact, judging by your examples, the Bible's examples and recent history, that is the ONLY way we will ever live in a moral world. I challenged you in Msg 58 to refute any one of the terms in Dawkin's description of the God of the OT: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” You apparently missed that challenge. Care to try it again?MatSpirit_{July 9, 2020
July
07
Jul
9
09
2020
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT}

@MatSpirit, there’s an old quote, maybe Jewish proverb, maybe George Bernard Shaw, maybe apocryphal, “if God lived on earth people would break his windows”. Personally, I always thought it would be amusing if someday the Intergalactic Bureau of Investigation appeared on Earth and said hey look, we’re in pursuit of this intergalactic criminal who goes by the name of Yahweh. He likes to go to primitive planets and torment the beings there. We have reason to believe he came to your planet, harassed you folks, but split 2000 years ago when a subspace report tipped him off. That whole dash the babies against the rocks thing? He apparently takes pleasure in torturing innocent babies, which is a moral crime in every known space system. You’re not allowed to use High Space Technology to lord over the rural folk and abuse them and he needs to answer for his interplanetary crimes. Any idea about his current whereabouts?Retired Physicist_{July 9, 2020
July
07
Jul
9
09
2020
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT}

Querious in 61: Are you seriously saying that if you're treated brutally enough, it gives you the moral right to take your oppressors children and bash them open on a rock? Is this what you mean by Christian morality?MatSpirit_{July 9, 2020
July
07
Jul
9
09
2020
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT}

Mike1962: "You seem to be arguing as if there is something actually wrong with what those the Aztec and Hebrew gods allegedly did. Are those acts really wrong, or are you just belching another one of those, “there is no objective morality, but this stuff is repulsive to me personally” kinds of statements?" Did you notice all the times I mentioned the Golden Rule? Do to others as you would have them do to you / don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you? Ok, try this: Do you want to be dragged to the top of a pyramid and held down on an altar while a priest cuts your chest open, yanks your living, beating heart out and throws it on a fire? I'm betting the answer is no. I'm also betting that 99.9 percent of all people would say no. So the Golden Rule overrides the commands of the Aztec gods and we judge them and their gods to be immoral. Next question: Would you want an invading army to kill your mother, father, wife, children, livestock and you? Again, I'm betting you would answer no and the Golden Rule once again judges the ancient Hebrews and their god's orders to be immoral. See how that works? We have a sound foundation for our morality without God! You have the monsterous moral mish-mash that is the Bible.MatSpirit_{July 9, 2020
July
07
Jul
9
09
2020
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT}

Name those Christians who did that.ET_{July 9, 2020
July
07
Jul
9
09
2020
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT}

ET: By their actions. Yes, there have been many. And they did push for an end to slavery So, would you say, in your opinion, that those professed Christians who justified slavery by quoting Bible passages were NOT true Christians? Just your opinion. What about those you did not speak out against slavery? Again, in your personal opinion.JVL_{July 9, 2020
July
07
Jul
9
09
2020
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT}

JVL:
So, how can you tell who is a true Christian then? Surely there were some over the centuries? Why didn’t they push for an end to slavery before the late 1700s?
By their actions. Yes, there have been many. And they did push for an end to slaveryET_{July 9, 2020
July
07
Jul
9
09
2020
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus: it is obvious that you are not truly engaging in a serious discussion as opposed to trying to find hooks to repeat talking points. What major change happened c 1450, them c 1520 then 1579 – 81 then in the 1640’s to 90’s, what major state document of England is dated 1688, and what impacts did it have across the following century? 1688 .. . you wouldn't be referring to the Germantown Quaker petition against slavery since that didn't happen in England . . . the Declaration of Indulgence issued by James II of England? Oddly enough James II was usurped by William of Orange later that year and fled to France. Seems like James' policies weren't universally appreciated. William declared he was coming to England to 'save Protestantism , no doubt implying he would go back to persecuting Catholics. I understand that political and liturgical reforms can take quite a bit of time and certainly the support for protestantism was bolstered by the advent of having the Bible printed in English. Have you ever been to Europe and visited one of the Gothic Cathedrals? Some of those were built by local organisations with little help from the higher ecclesiastical orders. Some of them took centuries to build. Local artisans donated hundreds of hours of their time because they thought it was the right thing to do. They are amazing to this day. And most of them were completed well before the Protestant reformation. The everyday Christians spent that much time and effort building places of worship because of what they were taught (since they mostly could not read) by a preacher teaching them from the Bible. Some of them even went on pilgrimages, remember The Canterbury Tales? They were very pious by today's standards and probably knew the New Testament very well. They used to put on immense productions depicting the tales in the Bible and the life of Jesus, they were called mystery plays and it would have involved the whole town or city. And lets not forget some of them went on Crusades to the Holy Land. I rather doubt you'd find many Christians today who would be willing to put their faith and their life on the line like that. That too happened before the Reformation. The people of Europe were Christians through and through. The showed it in their words and deeds. I guess it's just me but I just can't see how it took so long to come around to thinking that buying and selling people was wrong. Unless they didn't think it was. Maybe they didn't see the scriptures in the same way that we do. Maybe they heard all the Old Testament stories about the patriarchs having slaves and thought: I guess that's okay then. I don't know.JVL_{July 9, 2020
July
07
Jul
9
09
2020
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT}

MatSprit. We get it. God does not exist and he is nasty to boot. You keep saying that. Now, try to get away from your talking points for just one instant (I won't be holding my breath, of course). A number of comments above say to you words to the effect of: Hey Mat, you keep talking like the items on that list of horribles you keep repeating like a mantra are really bad things. Aren't you talking like those things are objectively evil while simultaneously denying the existence of any being in which objective good (and thus objective evil) can be grounded? Isn't that incoherent Mat? You can have your objectively evil list. Or you can have your atheism. But you can't have both Mat. But you keep talking like you can have both. Are you going to respond to this Mat? No, you would much rather deflect with "God is nasty." Sad.Barry Arrington_{July 9, 2020
July
07
Jul
9
09
2020
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply