Re: [asa] Expelled

From: PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com>
Date: Sun Apr 27 2008 - 23:35:21 EDT

What's the difference between the two cases. Why should a Christian
adhere to society's interpretation of God's word when he finds support
for a different moral standard in the Bible? There is similarly no
compelling reason that suggests that a Christian is in a more
privileged situation. Both have no more or less reason to accept or
reject standards of morality. That Christians 'know' that God
presumably has a set of standards of morality is of no real help to
the Christian in deciding what morality is the correct one.

On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 2:46 PM, George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
> Serious atheists don't just lack access to a standard of morality. They
> know that there is no such standard unless they invent one for themselves. &
> they know that there is no reason why the standard they invent should have
> any resemblance to current moral standards developed largely through
> religious traditions. E.g., there is no reason why any sort of respect for
> the welfare of other people beyond matters of self interest should be
> maintained. & recognizing that morality is a product of evolution in whole
> or in part doesn't provide a solution. So morality has evolved to a certain
> point. So what? Why should a person who's realized that adhere to that
> product?
>
> & playing the "So's your old man card" is no answer.
>
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "PvM" <pvm.pandas@gmail.com>
> To: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
> Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 5:32 PM
>
>
> Subject: Re: [asa] Expelled
>
>
>
> > And what does this gain us? Knowing that there is something we may
> > never know during our lifetimes? One may turn around and argue that
> > atheists are not constrained by a quest for searching for this elusive
> > standard of morality and therefor can apply more appropriate standards
> > when outlining standards for morality.
> > What is so problematic about atheists not having access to a 'standard
> > of morality' when Christians lack a similar clarity? In both cases it
> > comes down to us defining our standards of morality. In the end we all
> > work from subjective standards, whether or not we believe there is a
> > Higher Being who has His own set of standards.
> >
> > Now what if our sense of morality evolved, that would add an even more
> > interesting twist to this story.
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 2:01 PM, George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
> >
> > > You miss the point. If one believes in God as creator of the world then
> it
> > > makes sense to believe that there are standards of morality which have
> some
> > > source beyond the world even if we don't know in detail what those
> standards
> > > are. Denial of the existence of a creator means that there is no basis
> for
> > > such a claim.
> > >
> > >
> > > Shalom
> > > George
> > > http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "PvM" <pvm.pandas@gmail.com>
> > > To: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
> > > Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
> > > Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 4:56 PM
> > >
> > >
> > > Subject: Re: [asa] Expelled
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > I find the argument that atheists lack a moral standard of ethics
> > > > quite flawed, as flawed as the idea that Christianity somehow provides
> > > > us with a clear standard of morality. At best the Bible gives us
> > > > guidelines which we attempt to interpret as best as we can to guide us
> > > > in how we behave. However, the Bible is hardly a reliable or unique
> > > > source of morality.
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 3:52 PM, George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> >
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > The soft atheists of coursel argue, with a good deal of truth, that
> > > > > religious people in general aren't a lot more moral than atheists. >
> > But
> > > > > there is no reason for athiests like Dawkins to follow any
> particular
> > > syatem
> > > > > of morality or ethics. OTOH, religious people have a moral standard
> > > by
> > > > > which they can be judged. The point is not that atheists are more
> > > immoral
> > > > > than believers but that they are unwilling or afraid to face up to >
> > the
> > > > > consequences of their position.
> > > > >
> > > > > Shalom
> > > > > George
> > > > > http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: David Heddle
> > > > > To: PvM
> > > > > Cc: David Campbell ; asa@calvin.edu
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 5:10 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [asa] Expelled
> > > > >
> > > > > I'll take a stab--the answer is twofold. One is that his statements
> > > are
> > > so
> > > > > outrageous. His claims of child abuse will not resonate except with
> > > his
> > > own
> > > > > choir. The other is that his arguments against theism are so
> childish
> > > and
> > > > > primitive--boiling down to "religious people are dumb" and "if God >
> > mad
> > > > > everything, who made God?" Compared to intellectual atheists of the
> > > past,
> > > > > such as Bertrand Russel, Dawkins is (when it comes to theology) a
> > > > > lightweight. PZ tried to rescue him with the "Courtiers Reply" but >
> > that
> > > is
> > > > > little more than a justification and a rationalization to make a
> > > > > simpleminded response instead of doing your homework.
> > > > >
> > > > > In my opinion, Dawkins is to atheism what Benny Hinn is to theism.
> > > > >
> > > > > David Heddle
> > > > > Associate Professor of Physics
> > > > > Christopher Newport University, &
> > > > > The Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 2:51 PM, PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > How is Dawkins one of the best arguments against atheism?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 11:37 AM, David Campbell
> > > <pleuronaia@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > By accepting the claim that evolution entails scientism and by
> > > doing > > a
> > > > > > > poor critique, the movie to me does more to endorse scientism >
> > > > than
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > counter it. Of course, conversely Dawkins is one of the best
> > > > > > > arguments against atheism.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Dr. David Campbell
> > > > > > > 425 Scientific Collections
> > > > > > > University of Alabama
> > > > > > > "I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > > > > > > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > > > > > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Apr 27 23:36:13 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Apr 27 2008 - 23:36:13 EDT