Sure you do, if you take (as I assume you do), say, the Decalogue and the teachings of Jesus Christ as he is represented in the Gospels as your moral foundation. You can’t do that and at the same time take as your moral exemplar a dictatorial God who perpetrates mass-slaughter. It doesn’t add up.

First, based on your commentary thus far, I don’t think you have a proper characterization of the Bible.

How so? Either the Bible documents what I have reported, or it doesn’t.

But note how you begged the question: You assumed an ethical framework exists to explain why an ethical framework exists.

Strawman alert. I did no such thing. I said we can use our capacity for reasoning to determine why it might be good to act in certain ways and not good to act in other ways. I never said I had the answers. My point was that if there is an “objective” morality, it can only come about through the use of reason and evidence. That is to say, if there are “objective” answers to moral problems, they can only be arrived at through the use of reason and evidence. (I really can’t see any other way.) How else are you going to convince anyone that it is good to act in this way, and bad to act in that way? Pointing to a set of dogmas that you assert, without evidence, constitute the “universal standard of morality?” The only people bound to be convinced by that approach are those who already buy into your dogma.

I pointed out that you don’t have a logical reason to explain universal morality in a nothingness-to-molecules-to-man worldview, and you defaulted to the comment above.

I live in Japan, and I don’t like the way the weather turns horribly hot and sticky in the summertime. But regardless of how I personally feel abut it, the weather will continue for the foreseeable future to turn horribly hot and sticky in the summertime.

If “nothingness to molecules to man” is a matter of scientific fact, and if the moral code which you personally prefer but want to dress up as “universal morality” is dependent upon “nothingness to molecules to man” not being a fact about the universe, then so much for the moral code you prefer. (More reason than ever to keep you well clear of sharp objects and small children. )

They often use examples like, “It is moral because it perpetuates the species,” but of course that begs the question as well. Who proved that perpetuating the species was a moral good? Lots of species supposedly went extinct before humans came on the scene. Was that immoral?

I don’t know, and I would certainly never make the claim that the survival of a species is a moral good, or the extinction of a species is a moral evil. Those who do so would be as guilty of committing the is-ought fallacy as would someone who attempts to promote an ideology of social Darwinism by appealing to evolutionary biology.

I know those things are wrong because God didn’t just reveal himself in the Bible. He wrote the moral code on our hearts, so we all know those things are wrong.

What is the evidence for this?

But if we truly are just bags of chemicals, then it is only by some evolutionary errors that we “think” we have such a thing as morals. My point is that in an materialistic worldview you know those things are wrong but can’t explain why.

In a theistic worldview, as I have explained above, you can’t explain why those things are wrong either.

If you are as smart as you appear to be then you’d know that you don’t apply empirical tests to non-empirically testable things. Do you think truth exists? Can you prove it? How much does it weigh?

Truth and falsity are concepts (i.e. they “exist” as concepts): they help us to make sense of the ontological universe, but that doesn’t mean that they are ontological phenomena. I have hitherto assumed that when you speak of this “judgement” we will face in the afterlife, this “judgement” and this “afterlife” are both ontologically real phenomena–as ontologically real as the Sun. If they are not ontologically real phenomena, then what are they? Conceptual tools? Metaphors? If they are ontologically real phenomena, then all I am saying is that I deem it unreasonable for me to accept their existence based on a lower standard of evidence than I would the existence of any ontologically real phenomenon.

Some things can’t be tested empirically (though we do have lots of historical and archeological evidence for those who are interested).

Wait a minute . . . you’re saying you have empirical evidence for the things you say can’t be tested empirically? You have lots of historical and archaeological evidence for the existence of an afterlife as well as the judgement you claim we will all face in this afterlife? What is this evidence?

I fear I’ve taken Matt’s thread off-topic and apologize for that.

I’ll echo this apology, though I suspect Matt doesn’t really mind.

I can’t prove them in the same way that I can prove that 2+2=4, but I can prove them to my satisfaction in a legal sense (i.e., preponderance of evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt).

I understand that, and as I have said, I see no reason to doubt that you believe the things you do, or that you believe you have good reasons for believing the things you do.But I also see no reason to believe what you believe.

Reject Christianity if you like, but don’t imply that you have as much evidence for pink unicorns as I do for the existence of God and expect me to take you seriously. If you don’t believe the arguments from cosmology (first cause), teleology, morality, logic, archeology, etc. for the support the Bible and/or God, then so be it, but I think it is uncharitable to equate them with the evidence for pink unicorns.

I don’t think much of those arguments–it is true–and I see them as attempts to avoid substantiating claims about so-called ontologically real phenomena (deities, angels, resurrections, virgin births, the afterlife, heaven, hell, etc. etc.) with evidence. (I call it “Lawyering for Jesus.”)

And I’m sorry, but I see no reason to think that you have any more evidence for God’s existence than I do for the existence of pink unicorns.

For our theist viewers, the assertion that our morals come from god doesn’t tell us why murder is bad, either. Suppose the theist says: “Murder is bad because God says it’s bad.” OK, so why does God say it’s bad? Suppose the theist says: “Murder is bad because god says it’s bad, and if you disobey God (without seeking forgiveness), you’ll end up in Hell.” That’s the ad baculum fallacy, and the reason it’s a fallacy is because it doesn’t answer the question “Why is murder bad?” (It also opens up a further line of questioning, beginning with “Why ought we to avoid Hell?”)

You can apply a similar kind of interrogation to the idea that murder is bad because there is a “universal standard of morality” that says murder is bad. (A) What is the evidence that this universal standard of morality exists? (B) Why ought there to be a universal standard of morality? Trying answering this question without either begging the question or appealing to “worldly,” empirical, consequentialist reasoning.

What about those people from cultures that either predate the Abraham-derived religions or simply never encountered/heard of Yahweh (or whatever local flavour said deity comes in)?

Pretty much every culture across the world, even isolated ones, has roughly the same moral core. Certainly, there can be differences but there are always very strong similarities; murder is wrong, theft is wrong and so on. Now why, in cultures where god has never been so much as thought of, would this be so if morality came from such a deity? Obviously, it can’t.

Morality, to put it as simply as possibly, is evolutionary in nature and origin. Early tribes that worked together tended to thrive and survive a lot better to tribes that fell to infighting and killed each other off. Same goes for theft, they quickly realised that theft weakened the group as a whole and therefore it was wrong.

We even see this in primate social groups, who certainly aren’t religious or recognise the very concept of a deity. If one member of the group happens to kill another, they’re cast out or killed themselves. Even groups of dolphins has displayed this exact same behaviour – it’s common in any animal group that has higher order thinking. They’ve naturally developed a sense of morality.

And our morality has changed over the centuries which is also an indicator that there is no set standard for morality. One of the classical examples is of slavery – certainly a practice directly given the tick of approval by Yahweh but now we recognise it as a completely immoral act and most of the world has outlawed it. We, as a race, try certain things out and when they don’t work out we stop using them for something better, which is fantastic.

Sorry, one last thought. I have reasons to believe what I do. I can’t prove them in the same way that I can prove that 2+2=4, but I can prove them to my satisfaction in a legal sense (i.e., preponderance of evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt).

I am familiar with the pink unicorn, flying spaghetti monster, etc. arguments but I think those are a deliberate mischaracterization of the evidence we point to. Reject Christianity if you like, but don’t imply that you have as much evidence for pink unicorns as I do for the existence of God and expect me to take you seriously. If you don’t believe the arguments from cosmology (first cause), teleology, morality, logic, archeology, etc. for the support the Bible and/or God, then so be it, but I think it is uncharitable to equate them with the evidence for pink unicorns.

“Well, you have to admit that your deity, given how he is characterised in your Bible, is not much of a moral exemplar.”

I don’t see a need to admit that. First, based on your commentary thus far, I don’t think you have a proper characterization of the Bible. Second, materialists have foundation to explain a universal morality and thus no standard to measure him against.

“It’s called using your brain–your capacity for ethical reasoning.”

I disagree. Whether deliberately or not, you just snuck your moral foundation in the back door. I pointed out that you don’t have a logical reason to explain universal morality in a nothingness-to-molecules-to-man worldview, and you defaulted to the comment above. But note how you begged the question: You assumed an ethical framework exists to explain why an ethical framework exists. But where did the framework come from?

Every time I see materialists try to explain why they have an explanation for morality the same thing happens. I think most of them really believe what they are saying and don’t see the logical fallacy. They often use examples like, “It is moral because it perpetuates the species,” but of course that begs the question as well. Who proved that perpetuating the species was a moral good? Lots of species supposedly went extinct before humans came on the scene. Was that immoral?

“The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it.”

Straw-man alert. That is overly simplistic and I never say that. Once a clear teaching is established then it would be true, but Christians often take verses out of context when making that claim. I think that is incorrect and sloppy.

“Would you seriously contend that, if you were not religious or not a theist, you would see no reason whatsoever not to engage on a bloodthirsty rampage of rape, murder and pillage?”

Of course those would be wrong to do, and I submit that everyone knows it (I think we agree on that). As I was careful to note, I don’t make the ad hominem argument that only atheists are immoral. I think we’re all sinners in need of a Savior. And some atheists are quite “good” in the worldly sense.

I know those things are wrong because God didn’t just reveal himself in the Bible. He wrote the moral code on our hearts, so we all know those things are wrong. But if we truly are just bags of chemicals, then it is only by some evolutionary errors that we “think” we have such a thing as morals. My point is that in an materialistic worldview you know those things are wrong but can’t explain why.

“And given the extraordinary nature of your claims, nothing less than empirical evidence will suffice. If you are unable to provide this evidence, so much the worse for your claims.”

You are really tipping your hand there. If you are as smart as you appear to be then you’d know that you don’t apply empirical tests to non-empirically testable things. Do you think truth exists? Can you prove it? How much does it weigh? Some things can’t be tested empirically (though we do have lots of historical and archeological evidence for those who are interested).

I’ve referenced links to lots of reason, logic and evidence for the Christian faith. I won’t try to recap that all here. If people think they’ve examined all that objectively and reject that, that’s fine. I’m on the Great Commission, not the paid commission. I respect honest skeptics because I used to be one myself. But when I see error-riddled statements about the Bible like Matt’s above I must conclude that someone has been seriously misinformed or that they aren’t really interested in learning the truth.

I fear I’ve taken Matt’s thread off-topic and apologize for that.

Peace to you and feel free to have the last word.

Well, you have to admit that your deity, given how he is characterised in your Bible, is not much of a moral exemplar.

In fact, I don’t see how they make so many moral claims at all.

It’s called using your brain–your capacity for ethical reasoning. Determining why it might be good to act in certain ways and not good to act in other ways, as opposed to the non-thinking constituted by pointing to a holy book and asserting “X is good/bad for the Bible tells me so, and I don’t have to think about the matter any further. The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it.”

Would you seriously contend that, if you were not religious or not a theist, you would see no reason whatsoever not to engage on a bloodthirsty rampage of rape, murder and pillage? If the answer is “no,” then you should be kept well away from sharp objects and small children. But I seriously doubt you would answer “no” to that question.

I hope you weren’t being too literal with your “empirical” evidence requirement.

Regarding your claim that we will all “face judgement” after we die? Absolutely. I accept that you believe in the existence of an afterlife, but if you want to convince me or anyone else of the existence of this afterlife and of the veracity of your claim that in this afterlife we will all “face judgement,” then you need to provide sufficient evidence. And given the extraordinary nature of your claims, nothing less than empirical evidence will suffice. If you are unable to provide this evidence, so much the worse for your claims.

Of course, empirical evidence is useful, but there are other types of evidence we consider all day every day.

And why might it not be appropriate to ask for empirical evidence in the case of the claim you are making regarding what happens to us when we die?

And you can’t prove empirically that only empirical evidence is permissable. And unless you have re-performed all the experiments yourself, you are obviously relying a great deal on the testimony of others for your facts.

Sorry, but I’m not an ontological naturalist, so I’m not going to fall for this cheap apologetic trap. No, I don’t possess the resources or the know-how to re-perform all the experiments myself, so for that reason it is acceptable to defer (regarding facts about the phenomenal world) to (appropriate) expertise and existing bodies of scientific knowledge, as long as I acknowledge that this is not an ideal state of affairs but is only the next best thing to becoming an expert myself.

Nor have I asserted that only empirical evidence is permissible: I am willing to accept, on a standard of evidence no stronger than your testimony, that you believe that the claim “we will all face judgement after we die” is true. (You could, of course, be lying, trolling or playing devil’s advocate.) But I am neither willing nor able to accept the truth of your claim on evidence as weak as your testimony or the testimony of whatever religious writings or theological arguments you would direct me towards. If your neighbour told you that he kept a live pink unicorn stabled in his garage, or that a UFO landed in his backyard last Thursday night, I doubt you’d accept his claims on the strength of his testimony alone–you’d demand empirical evidence. Why should the same standard of evidence not apply to your claim, which is no less extraordinary? Why should your claim receive special exemption? Surely, if that standard of evidence applies to anything, it applies to the kind of claim you’re making: that there is such a thing as an “afterlife,” and that in this afterlife we will “face judgement.”

I don’t know whether or not there is such a thing as an afterlife, nor do I know whether or not in this afterlife, if it indeed exists, we will face some kind of judgement. And let’s face it: you don’t know either (you may believe that you know, but you haven’t demonstrated this knowledge sufficiently). And I see no reason to believe these things until I am presented with sufficient evidence–empirical evidence (because I accept your claim on the ground of anything weaker than empirical evidence I would have to accept a myriad of outlandish claims–pink unicorns, UFOs in backyards, Loch Ness Monsters, Xenu, thetans, etc.–for which there is insufficient evidence). You can attack empiricism as a way of trying to make me look unreasonable in not accepting your claim without empirical evidence, but you’ll only end up looking silly given that you have already acknowledged the “usefulness” of empirical evidence.