Moral Dilemma

**WARNING - CONTAINS HUGE SPOILERS FOR 'THE DARK KNIGHT'**

Okay...

The Joker has wired two ferries up with explosives (that cannot be defused). He announces that in twenty minutes' time both will blow up - unless either of the ferries uses the supplied detonator to blow up the other, in which case the remaining ferry will be allowed to go free.

One ferry is full of civilians (including children). The other full of convicted criminals. They have no way of contacting each other or anyone else.

If anyone attempts to leave the ferry - both will be blown up immediately.

You're on the civilian ferry...

What do you do?

Some thoughts on enlightened self-interest as the basis for morality

(What follows is a slightly rambling expansion on some of my comments about morality in the post below. What I'm hoping to show is that enlightened self-interest can provide us with a strong reason to act in a "moral" way. It's intended as a conversation starter rather than a definite pronouncement on the subject.)

Enlightened self-interest is different from sentiment or whim – I may save someone's life because I like the look of them, but such an action does not count as truly moral.

The vast majority of human beings are bound together by certain innate desires (security, companionship, contentment, procreation, etc.) which are harder (or downright impossible) to realise outside of the social setting. These desires, as well as forming the bedrock of all civilisation, provide the foundation of secular morality.

Immoral acts constitute those which undermine the realisation of these desires.

For example: I desire safety for myself and those I care about. If I make a habit of killing those who get in my way then I not only provide no reason for others to help keep me alive, I actually provide them with a reason to kill me – as I represent a significant threat to them and their loved ones. The best way to realise my desire is to promote the safety of all in the expectation that they will, in turn, ensure my safety. If I kill, or tolerate killers, such an arrangement is impossible to maintain.

This differs from whim in that reason is employed to consider the total effect of my actions. If someone makes me angry whim may tell me to kill them while reason tells me that such an action will be counter-productive.

(Obviously, most people aren't that keen on killing in the first place, no matter how angry they get – but I'm assuming worst case scenario to show the strength of enlightened self-interest).

As another example: I'm able to provide for myself and my loved ones much easier in a social setting than on my own. Bartering services and goods allows me a much comfier lifestyle than I'd enjoy in isolation – catching and cooking your own food (not to mention building a house, dealing with illness, etc.) is much harder than turning up at work each day and sitting in front of a computer. In order for bartering to work there has to be a basic level of trust between individuals. If I go around lying about everything then people will cease to trust me and so cease to work with me. (The social aspect of my life will also be significantly reduced). So not only do I have a strong reason to be truthful but also a strong reason to promote truthfulness in society as a whole.

Etc.

An immoral individual is one at war with the rest of society – undermining their chance to realise significant desires.

Some thoughts from Salman Rushdie

From Rushdie's letter to the six billionth living person:

As for mortality, the second great question - how to live? What is right action, and what wrong? - it comes down to your willingness to think for yourself. Only you can decide if you want to be handed down the law by priests, and accept that good and evil are somehow external to ourselves. To my mind religion, even at its most sophisticated, essentially infantilises our ethical selves by setting infallible moral Arbiters and irredeemably immoral Tempters above us: the eternal parents, good and bad, light and dark, of the supernatural realm.

How, then, are we to make ethical choices without a divine rulebook or judge? Is unbelief just the first step on the long slide into the brain death of cultural relativism, according to which many unbearable things - female circumcision, to name just one - can be excused on culturally specific grounds, and the universality of human rights, too, can be ignored? (This last piece of moral unmaking finds supporters in some of the world's most authoritarian regimes, and also, unnervingly, on the editorial page of the Daily Telegraph.)

Well, no, it isn't, but the reasons for saying so aren't clear-cut. Only hard-line ideology is clear-cut. Freedom, which is the word I use for the secular-ethical position, is inevitably fuzzier. Yes, freedom is that space in which contradiction can reign, it is a never-ending debate. It is not in itself the answer to the question of morals, but the conversation about that question. And it is much more than mere relativism, because it is not merely a never-ending talk show, but a place in which choices are made, values defined and defended.

A response from Alex
I whole heartedly agree with Rushdie's discomfort regarding morality being unquestioningly legislated by "religion". Even his comments on "fuzzieness" I find myself empathizing with. One insight I have come to recently is that on the level of the individual, moral truth can only be recognized through praxis. When I speak of an "absolute morality" I would want to clarify that what I am advocating is not that there are a certain set of actions that will be true for all peoples in all places. Neither would I wish to be construed as saying there's an exhaustive list of rules somewhere that if we just followed all of them we'd be "absolutely moral". Reality is more complicated (or maybe simple?) than that. To try and construct such a list only leads away from Christianity and towards moralism.

Still, I continue to disagree with any line of thinking which claims humanity ultimately has no transcendent ground yet we can still have such things as moral obligations. I would wish to reemphasize that my position does not at all claim that people who do not believe in God cannot be good, but rather if there is no God there's no such thing as good.

So where does the Christian find his guiding star when it comes to ethics? Is it because all actions have an inherent (deontological) moral bias? Perhaps that's to constricting. Would it be better to then only consider the results of our actions? (teleological) Bernard Adeney has a few helpful words here:

Deontological and teleological ethics are often treated as mutually exclusive. The polarization of means and ends, the antithesis between principals and results, this is a characteristic weakness of Western dualistic thought. It leads to war between the absolutists and the relativists. The absolutists are thought to be too narrow and rigid. The relativists are thought to be too wishy-washy.

Actually, the distinctions between deontology and teleology helpfully show two necessary and contrasting elements in moral choice. These are not contradictory, but complementary. The way they fit together cannot be determined by abstract philosophical principle. The concrete situation in which moral choices are embodied reveal the ways in which principles and results interact. [emphasis mine]

As a Christian I believe there are absolute moral principles and rules that reflect the character of God. These moral principles underlie all human behavior and are based in the fact that we live in a moral universe. Human beings were created in the image of God and have an intrinsic value. in the words of the Westminster Confession, we are created "to glorify God and to enjoy him forever." While these deontological absolutes are expressed and emphasized differently in different places and times, they are clearly affirmed by Christians in all cultures.

The central moral absolute that follows from these Christian affirmations is " 'The Lord our God , the Lord is one; you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.' ... 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these" (Mk 12:29-31).

Strange Virtues, Ethics in a Multicultural World pp.149-150

Common cause

In the posts on humanism below, I quoted and supported the idea expressed by Richard Norman that theists, atheists and agnostics (and others) should work together for common causes, even if they don't quite see eye to eye on everything. So it gives me great pleasure to point you all towards Greg Boyd on his vegetarianism:

Almost immediately after making this pledge I began to understand why the Lord had wanted me to make it. Scripture says a little yeast leavens all the dough (1 Cor 5:6). Well, I discovered that the little yeast of my willingness to engage in violence towards animals and other creatures for self-serving reasons (e.g. appetite, convenience) was polluting my heart and to some degree compromising my capacity to love. It felt like – and still feels like – my commitment to total non-violence has had, and is yet having, a purifying effect on my heart.

Obviously, my reasons for not eating meat are different to his, but there does seem to be a considerable overlap in our attitudes.

Some thoughts on wold-views and ethics from Victor Reppert

ISOHP takes the morality show on the road.

A little change of scenery is always nice.

Heresy, ay?

Life is full of ups and downs at the moment. On the up side I am loving my studies and have been enjoying some incredibly refreshing conversations with a few of my professors. On the down side, I really haven't had the time for blogging. I really miss our conversations! I'll be back though. We have much yet to kick around. In the mean time, here's a recent post by my man Greg Boyd. Enjoy.

"What did she ever do to me?"

I don't want to draw attention away from the debates on Just Thinking's post below, but I'd like to point people towards this article (found via Friendly Christian) on remembering that at the heart of all contentious issues are human beings just like us:

I enjoyed the attention I was getting. The newsletter of a local cult awareness expert described me as a ‘heroine of the faith’. I felt like I was doing something worthwhile by warning people about this heretical leader. I hoped she would repent and realize her beliefs were wrong. However she entrenched and sent out newsletters about how she was being persecuted for the sake of righteousness.

Around the beginning of December I made the mistake of thinking about the leader as another human being. I realized “Wow, I am being so mean – what did she ever do to me?” I had taken her workshop some time before this and it actually had some tips in it I found helpful. I also realized that holding up one particular measuring stick against her gave very distorted results – it was unfair. If I was honest, I knew from the workshops that she had great trust in God and great faith in him. He was her loving Father – there was no doubt about that.

Once I realized how mean I was being I couldn’t continue. I took down my Trinity website page and posted an apology to the leader in place of it. I sent her a written apology in the mail. I received a response back from her with a photo of her family. That response meant more to me – and still does – than all the acclaim I received for my stint in the doctrine police.

I don't want to come across as all Kumbaya on you, but one of the things I've learnt through debating both off- and on-line is that a little humility goes a long way...

Now how about a group hug? ;-)

My response to Tom Freeman's The moral of the story

This posting is in response to Tom Freeman's recent post on our continuing discussion of morality. We've been at this topic for about six months now and it would seem that we've made some progress. Much as been said (and will continue to be said) on the topic of objectivity. We both agree that such a state of affairs is desirable, however we still seem to be a ways off from agreeing that it really is he case.

First off, I'd like to offer my heart felt thanks to Tom. Over these last six months he has continued to put some serious thought into our conversations. I really admire the conviction with which he approaches our conversations. Keep it up bud!

I'd like to start by giving a quick overview of how I maintain the Christian world view allows for an 'objective' (read: "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts") moral framework.

According to Christianity all moral assertions are either true or false as they relate to the unchanging eternal character of God. Now, it is easy for the skeptic to feel a slight bewilderment that the Christian should claim moral facts are dependent upon some being hiding far far away in some remote corner of the universe. But this only serves to illustrate how hard it is for us to conceive of a being who is not merely 'a part' of reality, but is, in-fact, the 'source of' reality.

On a micro level it would be somewhat like a three year old nudging his brother and asking: "who does Dad think he is telling us what's right or wrong?"

In many ways, the three year old is dependent upon the family system that the father is the head of. In this way, the child is subject to the moral system that the father puts in place. Likewise, switching to a macro focus, we are contingent beings who depend on God for our very existence. Because of this, we are rightly under His authority.

Having said all that, I would like to address a question I have seen Tom raise on a few separate occasions. He seems willing to accept that the Christian God would indeed provide a singular, consistent and eternal standard, but he has difficulty calling such a standard 'moral'. I'm assuming he is basically asking: "how do we know this standard is good?"

In response I'll have to ask, would it ever be possible for the absolute Fact of all reality to act in such a way that could be deemed evil?

I'm not suggesting that this is possible, I am simply asking, who's standard would God have to violate to be evil? If God's character is eternal and unchanging, is it possible for God to violate His own standard? It would seem not. Thus, as I have argued in the past, God simply "IS" and therefore, we can only speak of 'objective' morals as they relate to Him.

A second point I would like to make on the topic of "why God's character matters to us", would be to point out that "morality" is, in a very important sense, simply a descriptor used to evaluate the state of a relationship between personal beings. To say the morality is simply "rules" or a "code of conduct" negates the more fundamental reality that underneath it all morals ultimately hinge on relationships. When one of the teachers of the law brought Jesus the question:

"Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"

Jesus replied:

"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."

The point is not simply to obey rules. The Pharisees strove to follow rules, even to the degree of tithing a tenth of their spices (grain by grain) in order to follow the 'rules'!

The key to morality lies in love. Love for each other and love for God. I would even venture to assert that without first loving God (or should I say accepting His love for us) we will always be incapable of loving each-other.

Tom, to the degree that you experience love and to the degree that you act in love your atheistic world-view is being contradicted. Do you realize that?

Now this concept of love (like morality) is difficult to put into words, but we sure know it when we experience it. The next time you find yourself experiencing a moment of profound love from, or, for another, pull the atheist card out of your pocket and look at it. What does it say?

"Tom, this experience is meaningless. It is simply the result of a chance happening of various material affecting each-other in a simple cause and effect sort of way. No need to get all worked up... not that you can help it"

Your friend, No one

What if you looked through life using a different lens? What if love actually had some meaning over and above a supervenient quality of "stuff"? You admit yourself that you wish to build your moral code around "compassion". Can you see a way that compassion is even available to us if there is no God? Mindless, determined matter cannot have 'compassion' on mindless, determined matter. If you agree with me here, then you must affirm that you are 'more than' mindless matter. (even really really complex mindless matter.) But now you are left with a problem. What are you?

Lastly, I'd like to just quickly address your assessment of the following comment:

Tom says: This ties in to one of the most telling throwaway comments Alex has made in our months of chewing things over. It came when he was rejecting the idea of there being real meaning and morality without god existing:

Alex says: If it [Christianity] is not true, to whom would I turn? Dualism? What's that? There's no name or face associated with a term such as that.

Tom says:He has a fair and I think widely shared view: a person, with a name and a face, can be far more inspiring than an abstract theory, however well argued. You can relate to a person; you can rally round them; you can ask yourself what they’d say. This is part of human nature (and why politics can favour personality over policy).

Role models are fine; fictional role models are fine; role models of dubious and contested reality are fine. They illustrate virtues that strike us as, well, virtuous.

One one level, this is a classic "Bulverism". But on another, perhaps more important, level you are acknowledging a fudamental truth. We need personal beings in order to even talk about "virtue". What does this do for the case of Platonic moral forms, or other such "properties"?

Would it not be reasonable to assume that since moral concepts only have weight as they relate to personal beings, that perhaps our longing for an objective moral framework is evidence that we are indeed — beyond all hope — products of a perfectly loving personal God? All I meant to illustrate, is that mindless platonic forms, or some other sort of property dualism, leave our spirits unfulfilled.

It would be much like while anxiously awaiting your spouses' return home from a long trip you find yourself in the position of slowly waking up from a mid-day nap. As your eyes adjust you see her! She's standing right there! Just inside the door you see, her arms outstretched to take you in a warm embrace! You jump up, ready to run towards her, but as your head clears and your eyes adjust, your heart sinks. You suddenly realize the object you thought was your beloved is nothing more than her old coat propped up on a broom handle. Sure you could go and give it a hug and talk to it, but it's not her. She's not there.

In the same way Tom, if we try to accept some moral foundation based off of impersonal "qualities" or "forms" we will come to a disheartening end. As I've tried to demonstrate in this post, morality is relational. It's basis is love. You can't have a love relationship with an impersonal quality. Therefore, it seems right to conclude that unless the foundation of our morality is personal and perfectly loving, then we have no foundation at all. I don't accept that, and you don't seem to want to.

I see Jesus as the visitation of this perfectly loving moral standard into His creation. The length He went to bring us back to him shows a depth of love that I can't even begin to comprehend. He didn't come to call us to a system of rules. He came to bring us into a relationship with Him. All that's left for us to do is accept the invitation.

I pray someday you see that the deepest longings of your heart really do have an answer and it's better than you could have ever hoped!

Tom Freeman on the quest for morality

Same questions... Different places

While doing my morning blog review I ran across a short question asked by a blogger who goes by exapologist. Looks like an interesting fellow. He asks: "I'm still waiting to see a plausible *theistic* account of morality."

I couldn't resist...

So if anyone wants to follow a familiar debate in a new location stop on in and see what pops up.

- Insert cliched shakespeare quote here -

In the interview a couple of posts below, Denys Turner makes the claim that in order to be a “proper, card carrying, atheist” you need to find a way of avoiding a certain question: Why is there something, rather than nothing?

It’s an interesting, and extremely important question. However, I don’t think that it really poses a great difficulty for an atheist such as myself, as there’s an extremely simply, but perfectly valid answer:

I don’t know.

That’s it. In some of the discussions I’ve had, both here and elsewhere, the theism/naturalism debate is treated almost as if it’s a zero-sum game – if naturalism doesn’t have the answers, then theism must be onto something. But for me that just doesn’t flow. It’s quite possible to completely demolish the naturalistic conception of the universe without providing any validation of the ‘God Hypothesis’, as they’re merely two separate attempts to explain why things are the way they are.

The theistic argument can’t just be a case of: “If naturalism can’t explain it then there must be a God”. Like any theory, it has to be built up independently.

In the same way, dualism is quite distinct from theism. It's quite possible - though I don't personally believe it - that morality is dependent on an aspect of the universe that we've yet to discover. Saying this merely suggests that there's still something for us to learn about what we call reality. It says nothing about possible deities. To say that there is “something” more than the material universe out there is to say nothing about the nature of that something – it’s worth bearing in mind that the discoveries we make about the universe in the next millennia or so are more than likely to be beyond anything that we can currently conceive.

The universe is a mysterious place, and we’re far from having all the answers. But that in itself is absolutely no argument for God.

The Atheism Tapes II - Jonathan Miller and Colin McGinn

Thanks to Matt for turning me onto The Atheist Tapes. I swear I could sit around and listen to these kinds of discussions all day! In todays installment, Jonathan Miller is speaking with antitheist philosopher Colin McGinn. I was particularly interested in the second part of this three part discussion where McGinn is addressing the Euthyphro eilemma. (a dilemma that I see only problematic because of it's first principals) McGinn goes on to mention the fear many theists have about the loss of an objective morality, but then continues to speak at length about a real 'moral quality'.

In fact, it would seem his prime motivating factor for being an antitheist is because he views 'religion' in general to be immoral. I see this as yet another confirmation of what I was getting at in my last posting.

I was hoping he would describe what foundation he is anchoring his moral claims to, as he seemed to genuinely believe that he was speaking truth while asserting moral claims. Unfortunately for me, he simply attacked the Euthyphro dilemma and moved on. Ah well.

Part 1:


Part 2:


Part 3:

The ground we stand on

As usual Tom Freeman has been asking some good questions and making me think much harder than I would on my own. Thanks for that bro! Recently, in the context of one of our back and fourth sessions, he brought up a thought that I'd really like to explore a little further.

Allow me to set the stage. Tom fashions himself as an atheist. He has a very acute sense of right and wrong. Not wanting his sense of right and wrong to be based on mindless chemicals (read feelings), Tom has come to see the concept of moral realism as an appealing option. The problem is, at the moment Tom is flying his atheist kite and that model doesn't come equipped with a personal God who's character gives a foundation for moral realism. When faced with this Tom has been sort of half-heartedly toying with the dualist idea. But as most atheists realize, there's no answers in a theoretical dualism... just a hope.

So the question that has been coming to my mind is this: If some who consider themselves atheists can begin toying with notions such as dualism, what keeps them from belief in God? More specifically what keeps them from faith in Jesus?

It would seem that many atheists reject the God of the Bible, because they view Him as immoral...

Tom says this in response to my claiming that all morality is rooted in a posture of the heart:

"The code of behaviour is to adopt a certain posture of the heart, so that you’re then inclined to obey commandments. Never mind whether you think they’re good or bad commandments, just use your freedom of conscience to surrender your own freedom of conscience, and give up your right to ask questions of they guy in charge. “I am the way, the truth and the life” – or, as Judge Dredd puts it, “I am the law”. I’m not sold on this!"

He makes several moral objections in this comment.

1. It is wrong to go along with something you believe is morally evil
2. It is wrong to surrender your freedom to choose to the will of another isn’t a moral outlook
3. It is wrong to have someone tell you to shut your mouth and just go along with X
4. It is wrong for God to claim that He alone is the standard by which all will be measured
Tom adds: 'An outlook that involves surrendering your freedom to choose to the will of another isn’t a moral outlook'

But here's the problem. He's using a standard to say these things. Tom is not ready to say that this standard is purely subjective and only reflects the matter thats clanking around in his head. So where is this standard coming from? How can we use this moral standard to shoot down the only One from whom it could possibly be derived? The more we pursue this end, we are essentially digging out the ground we are standing on. On what then do we stand?... or do we stand at all?

So here then is my proposition. Could it be that our allegations towards towards the God of the Bible might be seen in a different light if we were open to look? Tom made a number of objections earlier, I don't find any of them to be particularly troubling. All they require to be dealt with (and they do need to be dealt with) is a little perspective. If Tom wishes to maintain that his moral objections have any weight at all, there must be a personal God from whom this standard flows. If he cannot accept that due to some kind of materialistic prejudice, then he cannot appeal to dualism either. If, however, his reluctance to acknowledge the God of the Bible is due to some real moral objection, then we have some work to do to discover where this moral standard is coming from.

As for me, I continue to maintain that God as revealed in these ancient texts (and all of creation) gives us our best shot at sustaining a objective, or 'real' moral framework.

Lastly, one could always take the position that there is a God, but He is not properly revealed in any major religion. That is indeed a valid move, but I would caution about being to quick to leap in that puddle. Let's at least hold off until we've given a proper exploration of our motives.

Hope you don't mind me picking on you a little Tom. ;-) Just know that I do this only as a means for us to discover the truth of our existence. You know I love you bud!

Drawing the fire

Recently I tossed out one of my token objections to atheism in the comments section of one of Stephen Laws posts. His post had basically nothing to do with the comment I made, but I touched a nerve as I always seem to do and basically I ended up hijacking the entire comments section responding to objections to my objection. So, in the interest of drawing the fire in a different direction, I decided to move the debate over here. That way the good folks over at Stephen's blog can focus on the actual issues he raised. I will start where we left off by posting a thoughtful comment by Tom Freeman in the comments section, followed by my response. If you happen to be new to this blog, thanks for stopping in!

Poking at tigers and believing beliefs

Just finished up my guest blogging piece for The Tin Drummer today. The topic addressed was that of "belief". It's more of a ponderance than an argument, but it was interesting to write. Thanks to TD or giving me that opportunity!

I've also been continuing to badger some unsuspecting atheists over at Stepehen Laws blog. If you've been around here much it's nothing new. Surprisingly, the responses have been familiar echos of what has been tossed around here. Good stuff to think about though. Hopefully this will continue progress my thoughts as I try to sort out life in general.

What is evil?

The previous post pointing towards a little side debate I have going with Stephen Law turned into a really interesting discussion about the existence and source of evil. From the atheist bench the argument goes something like this:

If God is the source of all things and we know evil exists, then God must be responsible for the existence of evil.

The theists then respond:
No no. God did not create evil. He created free will, thus we all have the possibility to disobey God and choose evil. Satan was the first to make this choice.

The atheist then retort:
But why? Why would an all loving God create us with an inherent possibility to choose that which is evil? If Satan is the source of evil, then God created him with the capacity to become such; therefore, God must still be the source of evil.

There are some good points raised here, but I think there is a flaw in the starting points. Let me attempt to offer a few points that may help bring a bit of clarity to this idea of evil.

First of all I'm hearing the work 'evil' often used as if it is a separate ethic; independent of what we call good. Perhaps some think this is the case then make the right conclusion form the wrong assumption: If evil exists it must have a source. The leap is then made to "the devil".

This is not an uncommon belief, but I think it is flawed from the very start. Evil is not a separate ethic. Evil is the denial, perversion, twisting or otherwise manipulation of an already extant good. Now according to Christianity this "extant good" is God. If anything in this existence is to be ultimatly good, it can only be so by being in conformity with the character of God. There are many things that we call "good", but I would say that the use of the word "good" in an ultimate sense, does not apply here. We would be better to say: "I find this to be agreeable to me", or "This give me pleasure". In each of these cases we can then put a moral spin on the word "good" and ask: "I hear what you are saying, but is it "good" for you to feel these things?" Only if there is God does such a question have any meaning.

The question is then raised:
Why would God create us with the inherent ability to act against His will?

I'd respond to that by asking, what if what I've been saying all along is true? What if the calling on our lives is to be created out of love, by love, for love, to love and to be loved? What if this ethic of love, that most all humanity acknowledges as the greatest of virtues, really is the highest calling on our life? What if God, being the ultimate anchor of all reality, is Love?

Love must contain the option of being rejected. If the option of rejection is not present, then love is not 'true'.

The next question the atheists raise is:
If the calling on our life is love, and God is love, why would anyone reject a God like this.

I think the root of this objection is based in the idea that love is simply a warm fuzzy feeling that is always desirable. I would submit that this is not the case at all. To love God is to choose to submit to his authority. Now when you have your own program you are running this is not an easy task. In fact, I'd say it's impossible. Impossible, I say, without the same resurrection power that raised Christ from death. There is a reason Jesus says we must be 'born again'. We do not have it in us to conform ourselves to God's character. We must submit to Him and let Him change us.

So when I hear Matt say: "why should I submit to His judgment? I have my own standard. " it sends chills down my spine. He is echoing the words of the first fall in all creation and the same defiant words repeated down through history. If God is true, these are the words of death.

In the context of where Matt said these words he was responding to his conscious which tells him "suffering is bad". He went on to say: "If God decided to wipe out an entire people (as I believe he did a few times in the OT), you have no basis for saying that this action is anything other than good."

His sentiment is correct. ANY human should feel revulsion at such destruction of life. Having those words read to me as a child prompted me to tell my mom, through tear stained eyes, "STOP! don't read this to me any more!". I believe will all my being that was an appropriate emotional response to such things. I believe God feels the same way. He tells us He takes no pleasure in the destruction of the wicked. I believe Him.

I would say the sin Matt is committing is not his feeling of horror at these events, it's revealed in the statement: "I have my own standard". It's not trusting God. In short, that's the only sin there ever is. That's what evil is.

If God is true, Matt is evil...

If God is true, I am evil...

If God is true You are evil.

What could be done about this? We are all doomed to destruction.

Look to the cross. Look to Easter. Trust Him.

Against my better judgement...

I have engaged Stephen Law over at his blog. He has a delightfully entertaining thought experiment going called "The God of Eth" in which he considered the possibility of God being "all evil". He then goes on to use the same arguments the theists use to support their "good God" hypothesis to support his hypothesis. He feels the evil God concept can be equally supported using traditional arguments for an all good God, therefore if one feels an all evil God is ridiculous, then the same should be true for the idea of an all good God.

Obviously I disagree with him. You can see my initial response here and the continuation of our discourse here.

I predict I will be put to shame fairly quick as Stephen (and probably many of his visitors) is a respected philosopher in his field and I'm just some schmuck art major from Minnesota. Either way it's an interesting conversation that hopefully will progress my thoughts on this issue.

Freemania: The moral pragmatist's wager

Tom Freeman is pulling up the slack on the "deep thinking" front. He's formulated an adaptation of Pascal's Wager to the field of objective morality that is really worth a read. Make sure you have a few minutes as Tom still struggles to condense his thoughts.

Just kidding man. You know I love you! ; )

Freemania: The moral pragmatist's wager

Update for the sake of updates

It's been a solid week since the last real movement in this place. So I figured since I finally mustered up the energy for another extended response to Matt and Incitatus I'd give the readership a bit of a heads up. Click here for the latest happenings. In case you are wondering yes we are still flogging the relationship between morality theism and atheism.

Also Tom Freeman has an interesting post up here that I'd really like to give a thorough blog when I get a minute. Have a read and keep an eye out for some thoughts on that in the future.