RE: [asa] Expelled

From: Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu>
Date: Mon Apr 28 2008 - 14:15:02 EDT

The question is, who or what do the atheist replace God with?

Moorad

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of mrb22667@kansas.net
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 11:53 AM
To: George Murphy
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Expelled

I accept and agree with your point, George -- and if Pim doesn't, I'm
not sure
why he avoids it. It's almost obvious enough to be a truism. Atheists
deny any
absolutely objective basis for morality.

I think part of what Pim and myself are exploring as a different
direction is
that despite this, Atheists obviously have not become (by general
societal
standards) completely immoral people -- why not? They would say they
just
adopted the current set of societal standards, and they would go on to
press us,
by asking "what's wrong with that?". We and they both know that they
still
deny that these standards carry any kind of absolute authority.
Therefore they
don't have any foundation by which to call anything absolutely immoral
or
absolutely good. But this doesn't [most of?] them from functioning "as
if it
were so" according to whatever societal whims that have evolved or
whatever.

I don't think this necessarily need bother the Christian, Pim. If God
uses
biological evolution to bring about his creation of life, then why
should it
bother us if a kind of "societal evolution" brought about morality? We
still
recognize the absolute foundation undergirding it, and that is
significant for
the Christian. Whatever variations various societies and times develop
around
it, they are all roughly around the same theme: treat others as you
would be
treated. The Christian then recognizes the even greater imperative to
Love God
 with everything.

--Merv

Quoting George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>:

> You persist in avoiding the real issue - as do Dawkins & the other
soft
> atheists. Christians (to limit believers to them for know) believe
that
> there is a standard of morality which has its source beyond the world
& that
>
> they have been given some insight into it, primarily in Jesus Christ.
> Atheists believe - at least if their claims have any consistency and
depth -
>
> that there is and can be no such standard.
>
> I realize that I am repeating the same point I've made before but that
is
> because you keep avoiding it - whether deliberately or nott I don't
know.
> If you continue to do so I'll end the conversation.
>
> 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 11:35 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] Expelled
>
>
> > 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.
> >
>
>
> 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 Mon Apr 28 14:16:35 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Apr 28 2008 - 14:16:35 EDT