Family Man

There is hardly a significant difference between saying evolution is false and saying it is extremely unlikely.

Biff the unclean

You left out the zombies.
Odd Xians always seem to forget those zombies whenever this bible fairytale comes up.

Or is it covered by god doing magic again?

lpetrich

"Charles Darwin"

Well I'm sure you've seen the sky grow quite dark due to heavy clouds during the daytime. Sometimes it can be quite ominous, though in fact it is nothing very unusual. I understand you may doubt the veracity of this report; what I don't understand is the claim that is "clearly didn't happen." Likewise for the earthquake.

CD, are you claiming that there is nothing really special about either event? That they are nothing to write home about? That they are events to yawn over?

If so, then they don't qualify as miraculous.

Generally, there are two problems here. One, as I'm stating above, is the hyper criticism of rather normal reports.

You yourself seem to be claiming here that those events are not really miracles.

And do you believe accounts of miracles of other religions?

Do you believe that pagan statues would moan and bleed and do other things that Catholic statues have been described as doing? Yes, reputable historians had described reports of such things, though some were rather skeptical.

Two, is the question-begging assumption that God could not have controlled the events.

Which begs the question of distinguishing "goddidit" from "non-goddidit".

Reminds me of the argument that the virgin birth is "unscientific." Please, the virgin birth is predicated on the idea that God was behind it. If God can create the universe, surely he can arrange for a virgin to get pregnant.

Thus, "goddidit" can explain ANYTHING.

But I do have to wonder what CD believes about pagan stories of divine impregnations. Zeus was not called "Father Zeus" for nothing.

Does CD believe that Rome was founded by the son of a god and a virgin?

Does he believe that Alexander the Great's biological father was really Zeus? That Pythagoras's biological father and Plato's biological father were really Apollo?

luvluv

I happen to believe that the best argument for the objectivity of morality, or at least the best argument for the refutation of cultural relativism, is the notion of moral progress.

Simply put, if morality is culturaly relative, then the notion of moral progress is incoherent. Morals, in that view, can certainly change but the one thing they cannot do is progress , since the term progression in this context generally connotates a progression for the better. But of course, if cultural relativism is true, then there is no better.

So you see Family Man, if you are right and all morals are culturally relative, it hardly makes any difference that the Bible doesn't condemn slavery since slavery isn't actually wrong. It is simply out of date, or out of place... in other words out of fashion.

(But retro is all the rage these days, so who knows?)

But the important thing to remember is that all societies have this concept of moral progress, and it has ocassionally been transmitted across cultures. The value of democracy, for example, has been transmitted across many cultures, and most cultures into which democracy is introduced recognize it as a legitimate step forward from monarchy or dictatorship.

Moreover, the Christian theology of the fall of man makes absolutely perfect sense of the moral situation in which we find ourselves, in which there is rampant and substantial disagreement on morals but where we all have a notion of a "true" morality and of the real possibility of moral progress. I further wish to state that the Christian notion of the fall does not at all entail that every civilization began with a correct moral understanding. According to a literalistic interpretation of Genesis, the fall (and the attendant corruption of man's moral faculties) occured when civilization consisted of precisely one man and one woman. Even if one were to take a non-literalistic account, it is still pretty obvious that the fall occured pre-civilization.

So the fact that mankind, separated from God and determined to eek out his own existence, has developed some severely mistaken notions of what constitutes right and wrong in his pride and willfulness, is entirely consistent with the Christian position (and, in my opinion, ONLY the Christian position). Furtheremore, where moral subjectivists greatly err in my opinion (particularly cultural subjectivists) is that they believe that human beings aren't capable of recognizing a superior morality when they see one. Though the story is quite often overshadowed, there is a long tradition in humankind of cultures coming to see the error of their ways, and of them adopting the superior morals of their neighbors. Emancipation, for instance, was a cross-cultural phenomenon, as was women's sufferage and the nationalism movements that ended classical imperialism. The current anti-globaliziation movement is in large part an exercise in transnational ethics. The diverse body that makes up the movement does not assume that it has no right to declare that certain basic rights like freedom from exploitation apply to everyone, everywhere. Certainly these movements aren't everywhere and they haven't been adopted by everyone. But almost without exception, these movements (the anti-slavery, pro-women, anti-imperialistic movements) are regarded as moral progress wherever they appear.

At any rate, it is clear that the notion of objective morality is not at all defeated by the presence of differing moralities in the world. Furthermore, Christianity is the only worldview which can recognize moral diversity, explain it's existence within the context of the reality of an objective morality, and without contradiction continue to assert that there are real morals which actually apply across time and across culture.

As Christians, Charles Darwin and myself can actually say that slavery is actually wrong, everywhere and for everyone, even while recognizing there is disagreement about it. An atheist cannot say this consistently with his atheism. He would have to make such a moral statement on faith alone, if at all.

According to the Christian story, mankind is fallen, and their moral sense is thus corrupted. But by the grace of God all of us maintain the capacity to recognize real good when we see it, and to recognize real moral progress when it is upon us. Christianity, alone among worldviews, makes it possible to change for the better , not just for the heck of it.

wade-w

If that were the case, we could reasonably expect the bible to condemn slavery. Instead, we see the opposite; the bible supports slavery.

luvluv

No, we see the bible fail to condemn slavery, as the bible fails to condemn abortion, euthenasia, cloning, stem cell research, sex change operations, racial profiling, etc...

I'm the first to admit that the Bible is not an ethical textbook, nor, contrary to popular opinion, is it's primary work the institution of ethics. But the Bible does provide a suitable moral framework: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

It is hardly unique in this regard, I know, but the Bible's uniqueness doesn't lie in it's ethical outlook but in the personhood of Jesus Christ and his claim to be the unique Son of God.

Secular Pinoy

There's a difference. Abortion, euthenasia, cloning, stem cell research, sex change operations, and racial profiling aren't condemned in the bible because they weren't being practiced then, and if they were, they aren't written in the bible. Slavery is widely practiced in Biblical times, and there are several bible passages that discuss proper ways of handling slaves, without condemning the practice itself. Now if the bible talked about proper ways of handling clones without condemning it too, then you may have a case.

Rhea

abortion was practiced at the time. It was chemical rather than surgical. (some rather disgusting methods if you ask me! But since no woman should be forced to bear children, it was what was available and apparently an acceptable method in that context.)

Family Man

You do realize that this is on the wrong forum, but since you address me directly:

Actually, luvluv, I believe your position is the incoherent one. Progress as you're using it is a moral value in and of itself. Bring a Christian from the first century (or any other time period) and he might not find that we've "morally progressed" at all. I'm sure you can think of many things that might appall such a person. Heck, he might be appalled that there is no slavery. I'm not arguing that our moral judgements are the best moral judgments of all time (though I might argue that certain aspects of it are). The fact is, if we could travel two thousand years in the future, we might be arguing that our descendants are moral barbarians ourselves.

As the slaveowners of the time would have argued. That the slaveholding society of the south started a bloody war over. Heck, even Jesus didn't condemn slavery. The point being is that this appears to be exactly the situation that we have. My argument fits the facts. It isn't clear how yours does at all.

We have the concept because it is part of our moral judgements. Have you been to Vegas, luvluv? Do you think your great-grandparents would have considered that progress? Why should we smugly assume that our moral judgements are right?

No, it doesn't make perfect sense. We don't appear to have a notion of "true" morality. In fact, history and social sciences show that our sense of morality depend on the time and place that we live in. The sense of "true morality" that you have is nothing but an illusion that you have because most of the people you deal with have similar views. Expand you horizons a bit, and that "notion of true morality" disappears, and so does your case.

It is far more probable that there was no fall at all, rendering your analysis moot. In other words, you can't prove a fall. You can't make a case on an unevidenced assumption.

And does nothing to establish that morality "comes from God."

Meaning, of course, that other Christians disagree with you, but they're not "real Christians", right?

This is an overly simplistic analysis of the phenomenon. Were these examples adopted because they were recognized as superior, or were they adopted because they brought societal benefits to those societies that adopted them? You think there was no advantage to bringing women into the political mainstream? You think colonialism ended because imperial countries were ashamed, and not because it has become economically unfeasible (not that the former didn't play a role, it's just that the latter had a greater one.) And what about the less attractive moral activities that also cross borders? Materialism, drug use, pornography, for example. Do societies adopt these because they find them morally superior? No, luvluv, the transmission of moral values and activities across borders is far more complex that just making an unsupported claim that they "recognize moral superiority".

I suggest you haven't done any of those things, other than making an assertion that it does. Naturalism can recognize moral diversity, and in fact explains it on the basis that societies grew up in different times and environments. Second, there is no evidence that there is an objective morality (just one more unjustified assumption you're making). And the third is accomplished only by omitting any notion of God as the source of morality (which is what the disagreement was about). Your argument is nothing but a group of assertions.

I'm afraid that fellow Christians of the 18th and 19th century would disagree with you. And if that's true, how can an outside observer conclude that morality is derived in any shape or form from religion or the god(s) the various religions worship? And yes, I can say that slavery is wrong for everyone, though not on grounds of atheism (just as you can't claim it on the grounds of god says so). What I can't and don't do is to claim that everyone at all places and times agree with me. My opinions of right and wrong have no bearing on my argument. Understand that, luvluv, and perhaps you'll understand my argument.

Untrue. You're simply claiming it. There are many Christians who would disagree with you that we're progressing at all (my parents, for example, are constantly reminding me that the world is going to hell in a handbasket, and how they could sleep with the doors unlocked back in the 1950's, yada, yada, yada). Christians can't seem to agree on the point, and why I should accept your analysis and not my parents is not clear from your post. FYI: I disagree with both of you.

Heck, for all I know my parents have the correct Christian position and you are the heathen.

Secular Pinoy

Which is why I added the caveat that even if they were practiced at the time, it wasn't even discussed in the bible. I assumed that abortion, and maybe euthanasia, were possible at the time. Slavery is discussed buut never discouraged or condemned.