andrewcriddle

IIUC what Roger meant by "common knowledge" is that the decline of traditional Christian belief has occurred at the same time as the decline of traditional Christian moral values.

This seems as an empirical claim broadly true. One could of course question a/ which is cause and which is effect and b/ whether this is a decline in moral values per se, or a change in moral values from one framework to another. But the empirical claim itself would still remain valid.

Andrew Criddle

elevator

I hope Ipetrich don't mind me answering this (am sure he will reply as well). What I think initially started this was the (apparent) assertion that somehow religious belief is a prerequisite for possessing moral knowledge. And if this religious component is lacking in a society, then we experience the moral deterioration of society as a whole. I have linked to a recent research paper on the subject in a previous post, and the result is exactly the opposite. Not only does the study assert an opposite conclusion of that of Roger Pearse, but it also asserts that no cross-national study has ever been published in support of Roger's views. Therefore if you assert that Roger's claims have empirical truth to it, this truth must be found outside of religion. If moral deterioration is experienced in a society; statistical research show that religion (or rather lack thereof) most likely is not the culprit and that we must look elsewhere for reasons for this moral deterioration; such as higher population density, higher unemployment rates and class differences.

I think your analogy is a little flawed too in that you seem to assume that in observing the deterioration of a particular framework, the moral views based on that framework will deteriorate as well. This sounds correct were it not for the fact that Christian moral views are not exclusive to Christianity! Much (if not all) of the moral knowledge presented in the Christian doctrine has counterparts in other religions and even secular philosophy. Christianity even presents ancient moral values that today are considered immoral.

One must therefore be careful about claiming moral exclusivity to a framework that is neither unique nor perfect.

lpetrich

elevator, that was pretty much what I had been thinking. And I'd like to see Roger Pearse explain to us what he considers to have been a Golden Age of True Xianity without using the No True Scotsman fallacy to explain away counterevidence.

And getting back to the main subject, I'm reminded of something that Carl Sagan reported in his book The Demon-Haunted World. Several people had written to him claiming to be in contact with ET's. He would respond by having these people ask those ET's various questions.

Arcane mathematical and scientific sorts of questions, like what's a simple proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, would not get answered.

Questions like "Shall we be good?" would get answered.

Neither religious prophets nor CS's ET informants seem to have any knowledge that they could only have acquired from their alleged sources.


Furthermore, this dumbing-down hypothesis, as it might be called, is contrary to a common apologetic: prophecy fulfillment. Many Xian apologists like to tell us of all the prophecies that Jesus Christ had supposedly fulfilled. But why reveal such things and not reveal lots and lots and lots of useful things? And things that will make you seem like a super genius to the rest of the world?

Question

This is along the lines of my op, wouldn't he have converted a few of the atheists if he had said not to be beside the shore of the Indian ocean in Dec a few years ago, or don't build you towns at these GPS locations because of earthquakes, etc etc. To those that say that the people of the time wouldn't understand, it is easily handled with a past present and future section.

It seems to me that the Xians are so buried in the wording, translation and their interpretation of the book that they cant stand back and look at the implication or the results.

Roger Pearse

Thank you Andrew.

Of course I would qualify this by suggesting that the 'traditional Christian moral values' are not necessarily Christian, since we find the same morals discussed by the philosophers.

Incidentally I have just seen the following article, indicating an attempt to reduce the age of consent in the UK to 13 (with some supposed caveats of the kind that we have seen so many times before; produced as excuses when these liberalisations go through, and are thereafter ignored). Still, gay groups are campaigning for a homosexual age of consent of 14, so I suppose it will soon happen.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Amaleq13

What is the "Christian" basis for establishing age of consent? I wouldn't think the Bible would offer much to argue against 13. In fact, I suspect it could be used to support such an age.

elevator

That sounds like a complete 180 compared to previous posts where you assert that there is a direct correlation between Christianity and morality. If that is correct; great!

Roger Pearse

I'm afraid that people have attributed all sorts of things to me in this thread (without any malice), which actually I did not say and do not in fact believe myself. Sorry, but it is so, and it's happened again here. Can't I be allowed merely to say what I do say, rather than be supposed to confess to various stereotyped positions?

Actually I find that this sort of thing tends to happen when people 'know' what someone is about to say -- some cliche or other --, and respond to what they think he is saying, rather than what is *actually* being said.

Of course with many people they really *are* articulating cliches, and often not very well, so it's understandable to a degree.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

elevator

Oh, by all means! That's what I have wanted all along; for you to justify your position that "The abandonment of Christianity is coaeval with the abandonment of morality". All I have heard so far is pleads to "common knowledge" and accusations of strawmen. Myself and several others have clearly given you several valid counterarguments to your position, all of which you have so far elegantly avoided. I am convinced that if you could give a proper argument to support your position; most people in here, religious or not, would listen quite intently.

If you do not intend to defend your position why even present it in the first place? Again; I am not picking a fight, I just hear all these accusations from you about the deterioration of morality in the non-religious, construction of strawmen, how everyone in this forum misinterprets you and ignores you. I am very much interested in hearing your side of things and if you could explain it in a way that leaves out the vagueness and ambiguity then maybe we would all understand what you actually are trying to say?

lpetrich

Yes, they often seem like Bible-worshippers.

Why not be more specific? And show how the UK has turned into a Hobbesian war of all against all, like what happened to Albania in the late 1990's, only much worse.

Sex again. Is that all you can come up with? And not some super-Albania?

You were the one talking about your society's alleged complete lack of morals, and the only thing you could come up with is mixed-species embryos and lowering the age of consent.