To the editor:
In a previous letter I asserted that without God there is no basis for morality. Kyle Batson (Public Forum, Jan. 17) says "it is a disgusting and vile thing for God to command" certain things. What moral standard is used to say that? He says we have a moral compass separate from God. Where did it come from? If not God, did it evolve? Do all have the same compass? How does it give us a standard and the obligation to keep it? Are we not to harm others? What is the standard of harm and how can naturalistic evolution give us that obligation?
Brenda Frei thinks I am a bigot. (Public Forum, Jan. 18) Indeed the Bible tells of murder and others, but it tells the truth about sinful human beings. She thinks those things are wrong and gives other examples from the Bible. But what moral basis can be given for her moral pronouncements other than her tastes? Bigotry? She says morality comes "from responsible decisions and behavior" and an effort to better society. What moral standard does she have for responsible decisions and behavior and a better society? Is it what she wants? Can naturalistic evolution provide a basis for moral behavior? It has not and cannot.
Both letters demonstrate the human cry for morality, yet apart from God, and that one cannot be had without the other. Both have demonstrated (despite protestations) that they were created in God's image by desiring standards of morality they cannot provide apart from Him.
Richard Smith,
Lawrence
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
Ragingbear (anonymous) says…
Great to see that you decided to go low enough to play the "I'm going to heaven and your not so ha ha ha" card.
Pat Robertson called. I believe he wants you to give money for an extradimensional time dialator.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
Man, smith, that logic is so circular it's got me dizzy just reading about it.
imastinker (anonymous) says…
I am confused too. Is the word heaven even in there. Or afterlife - or anything?
Strontius (anonymous) says…
I'm just really surprised the Journal World would print a back and fourth like this in the paper. If other people want to weigh in on the subject, then great. But the paper shouldn't print the same person's response twice just because he wanted to have the last word.
werekoala (anonymous) says…
smith/others:
Are Hindus as lacking in absolute truth as atheists?
Do they share the same absolute truth as you do?
If there are two mutually exclusive doctrines both claiming to be absolute truth, how should we set up a society that includes believers of both doctrines?
These are very serious questions, and I am highly interested in your responses.
budwhysir (anonymous) says…
How many of you thought I wouldnt show up in here?
Why all the letters about morals and religon?????????
Is this the new wave of classes for learning morals and religon?
jonas (anonymous) says…
Strontius: Indeed, especially due to the fact that you could already read the back and forth between Smith and, well, everyone else just by scrolling down on the previous letters.
Jamesaust (anonymous) says…
Or, perhaps to paraphrase the current Pope:
since religion is based upon truth, and reason is based on truth, and science is based on truth, then ultimately there can be no contradiction between religion, reason, and science.
That said, this letter displays (hat-tip to Bozo), circular logic - the result proves the premise. The letter's author might just have abbreviated all this to "cause I say so!"
Might I suggest to the author that if reason and science on one hand and religion on the other hand seem to conflict, it may be HIS (confused? bigoted? flawed?) interpretation of religious truth that is invalid?
Put another way, after a long history of religion putting itself in contradiction to non-revealed truth, i.e., reason and science, on issues ranging from biological reproduction, the arrangement of the universe, the immorality of slavery, many religions today find it useful to hedge on the application of broad pronouncements of what is or is not "morality" - at least when there appears a contradiction to reason and science. Obviously, "thou shalt not kill" means something different to the Amish than it does to an Army chaplain - and yet both claim that their morality proceeds from truth.
(But then, who're you going to believe, the inherently flawless word of God copied down by flawless men, selected by flawless men, translated into your imprecise language by flawless men, and interpreted by flawless men OR your own lying eyes? That's the question, isn't it? Can religious faith ever include absolute certainty and still be faith or must it require humility in its certainty to be faith?)
ckennedy (christy kennedy) says…
http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/col...
Porter (anonymous) says…
ckennedy - great link! I often find that those who profess a moral code the loudest are usually the sickest pervos in the bunch.
The good Rev. Haggard is only one example. Bob Barr, Newt G., Jim Bakker, we could go on and on.
Those that use the Bible to call others sinners, immoral, etc. should keep in mind one of my favorite passages:
Romans 2:1 Therefore you are without excuse, O man, whoever you are who judge. For in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself. For you who judge practice the same things.
maxtin (anonymous) says…
Divine Command theories of ethics are incompatible with Christianity. They obviate the content of the doctrine of God's goodness. Erm Aquinas pointed that out hundreds of years ago... and the catholic church agreed...
Confrontation (anonymous) says…
Hey Dick, get a life and stop sending useless crap to the LJWorld. Afterall, you know they'll print it.
smith (anonymous) says…
Great to see that you decided to go low enough to play the "I'm going to heaven and your not so ha ha ha" card.
Pat Robertson called. I believe he wants you to give money for an extradimensional time dialator. Ragingbear
----------------------------------------------------------------
If you ever decide to present a real argument, let me know. You might want to go back and read what I wrote and you will see that you are not responding to anything I wrote. Just remember, you are the one that claims to speak with Pat Robertson, not me. Do you guys have a lot in common?
smith (anonymous) says…
Man, smith, that logic is so circular it's got me dizzy just reading about it. bozo
------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I hope your dizziness gets better so that you can show me how my argument is circular. It is far easier to state something that it is to actually show it.
smith (anonymous) says…
plumberscrack
Just another wacko with too much time on their hands!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Not too much time, but one looking ahead to eternity and knows that time is short for us all.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
Really? Just how "short" is it?
And how do you know?
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
smith (anonymous) says…
smith/others:
Are Hindus as lacking in absolute truth as atheists?
Do they share the same absolute truth as you do? werekoala
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They do not share the same absolute truth and so lack absolute truth. Jesus Christ is the revelation of the truth of God and so if one does not know God through Christ one does not know God and the truth of God. That sounds so harsh to people, but God has revealed Himself by grace through Christ. It is arrogant of man to say that God should behave as man wants and provide all the ways to Himself that man wants.
=====================================
If there are two mutually exclusive doctrines both claiming to be absolute truth, how should we set up a society that includes believers of both doctrines?
werekoala
--------------------------------------------------------------------
If we would simply operate by our Constitution and not twist and turn it like a wax nose, there can be room in a society for all. However, that does not mean that two teachings that contradict each other can both be true. Both the Hindu and the Christian can live side by side and be friends and neighbors, but that does not mean that both positions are true.
As I have tried to set out in this and previous posts, so far no one has provided a real basis and oughtness for ethics other than theism. The very fact that secular humanists and atheists strive for morality demonstrates that they are created in the image of God. Naturalistic evolution cannot give man any compelling reason or obligation to be moral. Each time a person screams about morality s/he is showing that s/he has been created by God. The Hindu has also been created by God and as such should be able to get along with people in a basic society.
smith (anonymous) says…
Posted by Jamesaust (anonymous) on January 20, 2007 at 12:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Or, perhaps to paraphrase the current Pope:
since religion is based upon truth, and reason is based on truth, and science is based on truth, then ultimately there can be no contradiction between religion, reason, and science.
That said, this letter displays (hat-tip to Bozo), circular logic - the result proves the premise. The letter's author might just have abbreviated all this to "cause I say so!"
Jamesaust
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Or perhaps you should read it again and you will see that it is not must because I said that. It is not circular logic and I invite you to demonstrate it with more than just "cause you say so."
======================================
Might I suggest to the author that if reason and science on one hand and religion on the other hand seem to conflict, it may be HIS (confused? bigoted? flawed?) interpretation of religious truth that is invalid? Jamesaust
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Or maybe you are not dealing with the issues raised in the letter and are off commenting on things. However, while this forum allows you to make such a suggestion, I will suggest that stating it is different than showing it. So try to go ahead and show it.
======================================
smith (anonymous) says…
Put another way, after a long history of religion putting itself in contradiction to non-revealed truth, i.e., reason and science, on issues ranging from biological reproduction, the arrangement of the universe, the immorality of slavery, many religions today find it useful to hedge on the application of broad pronouncements of what is or is not "morality" - at least when there appears a contradiction to reason and science. Jamesaust
--------------------------------------------------------------------
And where did I speak of anything like this? Oh well, no sense staying with the topic at hand. I find it somewhat amusing that you believe that religion is wrong on the issues you list above. First, you have yet to show that you have any basis for morality from your worldview. You just assume that slavery is wrong rather than try to demonstrate it from your worldview. I will again challenge you to demonstrate that slavery ir anything at all can be morally wrong if we have all evolved. In other words, you are the one assuming things that you have not shown.
I would also like to remind you that you also appear to assume that science can discover what is true. You might want to back off of that statement. Does science really discover truth or does it discover paradigms and make theories about things that work? If evolution is true, can a human being ever have knowledge at all?
=======================================
smith (anonymous) says…
Obviously, "thou shalt not kill" means something different to the Amish than it does to an Army chaplain - and yet both claim that their morality proceeds from truth. Jamesaust
------------------------------------------------------------------
Which proves what? When scientists see things differently, do you believe that science is disproved or flawed?
=======================================
(But then, who're you going to believe, the inherently flawless word of God copied down by flawless men, selected by flawless men, translated into your imprecise language by flawless men, and interpreted by flawless men OR your own lying eyes? That's the question, isn't it? Can religious faith ever include absolute certainty and still be faith or must it require humility in its certainty to be faith?) Jamesaust
--------------------------------------------------------------
So you prefer to trust men that have evolved from irrational or non-rational material by no design at all, studying things that have no design or rational order, with flawed studies that come from grants from other flawed men to give you something that might be true in a universe that is nothing more than some absured accident? It would appear that not only would your position require humility, it logically only leads to intellectual and moral nihilism. Not that my rathers decide what is true, but if I had to decide on my rathers, I would certainly choose an intelligent Creator who gives absolute truth and morality over an irrational system that gives no truth and no morality. Which system answers how man really is?
smith (anonymous) says…
ckennedy - great link! I often find that those who profess a moral code the loudest are usually the sickest pervos in the bunch.
The good Rev. Haggard is only one example. Bob Barr, Newt G., Jim Bakker, we could go on and on. Porter
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Lord has given you into my hands. On what basis and moral code are you calling other people sick and pervos? What basis do you call them that? Why are you judging the people above when you quote the Bible (out of context) to show that people judge? If you don't have a theistic worldview, you have no objective basis for right and wrong and are judging those poor people that you call perverts by your own standards that you have derived from who knows where. The very fact that you think those men are wrong and are hypocrites demonstrate that you are created by God and have a moral basis inside you.
===================================
Those that use the Bible to call others sinners, immoral, etc. should keep in mind one of my favorite passages:
Romans 2:1 Therefore you are without excuse, O man, whoever you are who judge. For in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself. For you who judge practice the same things. Porter
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, but keep reading. There is no condemnation for those who are in Christ. What the text is saying is that those who think that they keep the Law break the Law in other ways. So, Porter, if you think you are keeping the Law by not being like Haggard and the crew and think you are better than them the verse you quote condemns you.
smith (anonymous) says…
Divine Command theories of ethics are incompatible with Christianity. They obviate the content of the doctrine of God's goodness. Erm Aquinas pointed that out hundreds of years ago... and the catholic church agreed... maxtin
--------------------------------------------------------------------
That is simply not the case. Christianity is quite clear on the Greatest Commandments. The Greatest Command is to love God with all of your heart, mind, soul, and strength. That command is not incompatible with Chrsitianity though without it there is no true morality.
smith (anonymous) says…
Really? Just how "short" is it?
And how do you know? Agnostick
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Life is but a vapor. All of our lives are short and even one hundred years is but a moment in time on this earth. If the universe is 13-15 billion years of age, then our vaporous lives are but for a moment.
smith (anonymous) says…
Hey Dick, get a life and stop sending useless crap to the LJWorld. Afterall, you know they'll print it. Confrontation
------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't send them that sort of stuff so I can't stop. You are being rather judgemental about it and so evidently are passing some sort of intellectual and/or moral judgment. If you have a non-theistic worldview, you have no intellectual or moral basis for what you are saying. In other words, with both of your feet firmly planted in the air you pass judgments without any basis or rationale for them. Nothing like living with your head in the sand as you live a life of total inconsistency.
werekoala (anonymous) says…
According to smith:
Regarding Hindus, "They do not share the same absolute truth and so lack absolute truth."
He's previously said that only absolute truth makes people moral, hence Hindus are just as immoral as atheists, and have no reason not to kill, murder, rape, etc. Yet India has no higher rates of these crimes than we do.
===========
"The Hindu has also been created by God and as such should be able to get along with people in a basic society."
Well, by that logic so has the atheist, right? And hence, we can all get along in society without the need for appeals to divinity in order to establish a morality.
That's the whole point of the establishment clause of the constitution, btw.
smith (anonymous) says…
"If you have a non-theistic worldview, you have no intellectual or moral basis for what you are saying. "
If you are saying something that pertains to a worldview, then what you're saying is intellectual and not moral, but you say is based in the intellect but independent of the moral, then what your saying can't be right because you don't worship the god that I do. scenebooster
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A worldview would contain both intellectual and moral elements. I am simply trying to point out that the atheistic and naturalistic worldview has no basis for knowledge or morality. There can only be one infinite God that is really God. That God has revealed Himself through Jesus Christ.
smith (anonymous) says…
According to smith:
Regarding Hindus, "They do not share the same absolute truth and so lack absolute truth."
He's previously said that only absolute truth makes people moral, hence Hindus are just as immoral as atheists, and have no reason not to kill, murder, rape, etc. Yet India has no higher rates of these crimes than we do. werekoala
-------------------------------------------------------------------
No, the mere knowledge of absolute truth does not make one moral. I did say that no one has a basis for morality apart from absolute truth. I also argue that man has an innate desire to be moral and it is quite within my worldview that Hindus and others will not have a high rate of certain crimes. That does not mean that the naturalistic worldview has any basis for it. In fact, the naturalistic worldview has no real answer of why people do not commit crimes.
=====================================
"The Hindu has also been created by God and as such should be able to get along with people in a basic society."
Well, by that logic so has the atheist, right? And hence, we can all get along in society without the need for appeals to divinity in order to establish a morality.
That's the whole point of the establishment clause of the constitution, btw. werekoala
=====================================
But you are still missing the main point. How can the athiest even begin to provide a basis for morality? What objective standard can the atheist provide? What can give people the compulsion to be moral? What provides an oughtness to morality? The logical end of the atheistic worldview is utter nihilism.
budwhysir (anonymous) says…
This is getting out of hand, Im tired of reading this kind of stuff in the paper, it just makes everyone go crazy with all the posts.
werekoala (anonymous) says…
"How can the athiest even begin to provide a basis for morality?"
You know, philosophical speculation aside, I don't really care, as long as they believe in morality that is more or less congruent to that which is generally accepted by human beings. It's obvious that the only answer you will accept as a basis for morality is Jesus - fine by me if that's what you believe.
I care more about pragmatism - what makes a well-ordered society. And what I've attempted to point out is that belief in Jesus is not necessary for people to lead moral lives - hence the example of India.
So if you need to believe in Jesus, Allah, Vishnu, or Santa Claus in order to behave - that's fine with me. But you have to acknowledge that others do not share your views, and find some compromise that allows you to share a society with them. That compromise IS the non-deistic morality and legal system we have in place today, and it works just fine, thank you.
=========
"The logical end of the atheistic worldview is utter nihilism."
The logical end of ANY world view is either nihilism, presdeterminism, or solopsism.
So what to do? Go outside, play in the grass, and enjoy the pretty girls walking by!
smith (anonymous) says…
"How can the athiest even begin to provide a basis for morality?"
You know, philosophical speculation aside, I don't really care, as long as they believe in morality that is more or less congruent to that which is generally accepted by human beings. It's obvious that the only answer you will accept as a basis for morality is Jesus - fine by me if that's what you believe. werekoala
----------------------------------------------------------------
So whatever is generally accpeted by human beings is moral. Does that mean all of them or just a particular group of them? Again, no standard as long as people agree with it. So if I can find a large enough group of people that want to do a lot of harm to people that post under the name of "werekoala" that will be moral and fine by you. I don't think so.
=====================================
I care more about pragmatism - what makes a well-ordered society. werekoala
---------------------------------------------------------------------
By what standard are you going to determine what is a well-ordered society? What Hussein did in Iraq let to a well-ordered society and the logical end of that excuses his torture of thousands and murder of millions. But, from the pragmatic view, it led to a well-ordered society so all is well. Should we discuss Stalin on that as well?
======================================
And what I've attempted to point out is that belief in Jesus is not necessary for people to lead moral lives - hence the example of India. werekoala
--------------------------------------------------------------------
And your example does not obtain. You appear to think that a belief is just an intellectual belief rather than what it is which is a belief based on spiritual things and is the deepest conviction of the heart.
====================================
smith (anonymous) says…
So if you need to believe in Jesus, Allah, Vishnu, or Santa Claus in order to behave - that's fine with me. But you have to acknowledge that others do not share your views, and find some compromise that allows you to share a society with them. That compromise IS the non-deistic morality and legal system we have in place today, and it works just fine, thank you. werekoala
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yet you have yet to show that it produces real morality at all. Just people, for the most part, getting along to some degree. How do you know that this is even a good thing? Because it makes you comfortable? Even the idea of behaving comes from some standard. What of people that don't behave as you wish? Are you going to push your preference on them apart from any basis and yet expect them to do what you say is right?
======================================
"The logical end of the atheistic worldview is utter nihilism."
The logical end of ANY world view is either nihilism, presdeterminism, or solopsism. werekoala
-----------------------------------
How do you know that?
===========================
So what to do? Go outside, play in the grass, and enjoy the pretty girls walking by! werekoala
-----------------------------------------------------
There are plenty of girls that might think that is immoral and not a part of a well-ordered society. It is using them for your own pleasure. So now selfishness is part of a well-ordered society as long as you like it.
smith (anonymous) says…
Dear God, please protect me from all those who believe in You Shadower
------------------------------------------------------
The prayer of one running from reality. Please, don't let the light of any truth shine through my shell because it makes me uncomfortable?
smith (anonymous) says…
This is getting out of hand, Im tired of reading this kind of stuff in the paper, it just makes everyone go crazy with all the posts. budwhysir
---------------------------------------------------------------
I suppose that we must now postulate an objective standard of what it means to be crazy. If there is no objective standard based in reality for that, then anyone can pronounce anyone else crazy because it is different than what s/he desires. That sounds like what Russia did to its political enemies.