First, you seem to be equating morality with the law and we should be careful not to do that. The laws we have now are put in place by elected legislators, many of whom have demonstrated that they aren’t particularly “moral”. It may seem a minor point but there is a difference, especially with regards to the point that human morality predates Jewish morality. As I said above, the fact that similar moral precepts are present all over the world indicates that they are independent of their supposed proponents in a given region (Moses, Confucius, Siddhartha, whomever).

So if it (morality) arose independently, it cannot be claimed as the exclusive province of any particular region; that much is obvious. What remains to be sorted out is whether God gave man a conscience or whether man developed a conscience as a “survival skill”. You incorrectly state that my position argues for a “predisposition” toward morality; it you read my posts again you’ll se that I am actually proposing the opposite: that men who developed “morality” were able to band together and provide a safer environment in which to have and raise offspring. In other words, men with basic morality lived long enough to have children, who then found themselves in a group (tribe) of others who also had basic morality. The men who shirked morality (as it pertained to the group) were been forced to live outside the group; a much more dangerous prospect. He and any kids he had would have a much greater chance of either starving or succumbing to a predator. It is survival of the fittest, and the fittest in this case were those who could live together peacefully in large groups.

Once morality exists it is a natural impulse to refine and codify it in some way, and the most obvious way for primitive man to do so was through his gods. There always exist men who ask “why?” and this codification gave such men their answer: because the gods will it.

Given this rather simple explanation, why should we choose a more complex one involving supernatural agencies? Once again William of Occam rears his head: the simplest explanation (the one that doesn’t rely on the supernatural) is most likely the correct one. There is no need to posit a magical being (which raises more question than it answers) when simple, observable, naturalistic processes are more than adequate to explain how morality developed.

Of course there are corruptions of the law of nature and the revealed moral law of God; polygamy, human sacrifice (which is a primoridal human perversion of God providing a sacrifice for our sins), trial by gauntlet, etc., but those corruptions are expected when dealing with a corrupted humanity.

I think we can agree that the practice of human sacrifice predates Christianity. We can further agree that whenever two things exist which are obviously related, the one that predates the other is usually the cause or basis of the second (especially when we talk about cultural memes in a specific region).

This suggests that the Christian notion of the spiritual “value” of blood sacrifice is the actual “perversion” (or more accurately a logical outgrowth, for “perversion” has ugly connotations) of what came before it…pagan human sacrifice. In other words the Christian notion of blood sacrifice is built upon the foundations laid by more primitive man (as are literally all of our customs today).

This is, in fact, born out by what we know of the times before Christianity. The pre-Christian practice most similar to the Biblical sacrifice of Jesus was the sacrifice of willing “sacred kings” (men who were chosen for the honor of being king for a year and then sacrificed to the gods to ensure a good harvest).

Even within the Bible itself are a few references to the practice of human sacrifice (such as Genesis 22:1-18: “Take your son, your only son…Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains” or Judges 11:29-40, wherein Jephthah burned his daughter as a sacrifice to compensate God for a recent military victory).

I know your first impulse in reading the above paragraph will be to explain that God was only testing Abraham or that Jephthah acted of his own accord. I know this; I am only demonstrating that humans still viewed human sacrifice as something of value at the time the Bible was written.

Likewise, the Bible is laced with passages wherein God is pleased by the smell of charred animal flesh. This might seem repugnant to modern man at first blush, but it makes perfect sense from the perspective of those who lived back then, when there was little more valuable in the world than meat to eat.

IF there is value in the sacrifice of living things, it stands to reason that the ultimate sacrificial value would be in the sacrifice of God’s own son. The progression is obvious.

”Such fellowship would require me to divest myself of what I prize most highly: the freedom and ability to apply critical, rational thought to everything around me, without exception.” – Godfrey

That’s a red herring. I’ve never belonged to any fellowship which “would require me to divest myself of the ability to apply critical, rational thought.”

It’s not a red herring at all. Christianity requires faith, does it not? And faith is the act of believing in something regardless of a lack of evidence. Therefore faith requires suspension of some degree of rational inquiry, something which propels the old saying “the Lord works in mysterious ways”…in other words “don’t ask”. I’m not saying that Christians don’t have the capacity for critical thought, only that they must willingly suspend it in order to believe in something that is invisible, intangible and lacking in empirical evidence. That is what faith is all about, and that is all I meant.

I’m sure every atheist and secular prides themselves in “applying critical, rational thought”, but other than their criticisms of Judeo-Christian thought and religion in general, there is little to recommend atheism given its own lack of worldview unity.

Does Christianity have “worldview unity”? If so, why is it necessary to have so many different sects? Do Christians all support the war? Do all oppose abortion? Your point is a non-starter because the characteristic of “disunity” applies in some respect to any group of two or more.

For surely if atheism represents the highest pinnacle of man’s dispassionate reasonings and “critical, rational thought”, then there wouldn’t be atheists on both sides of the abortion debate, who are socialists versus constitutional republicanism, who believe in just war versus anti-war all the time.

Belief in the supernatural doesn’t have anything to do with whether abortion is right or whether the political climate justified the Iraq war. It certainly has nothing to do with socialism or democracy. You are unfairly pigeonholing atheists, who have as widely varying notions about political issues as anyone else.

You see, the very point upon which you rest your atheist worldview betrays the very tenets of your own faith because obviously if its a matter of conducting ones life according to the principles of rationality, critical thinking and objectivity then it should lead all atheists down the same road irrespective of the cultures they may live in, right?

First of all, you are wrong to say that I have a “faith” with “tenets”. Atheism is not a faith…it’s a lack of faith. Would you call a man who doesn’t breed dogs a “breeder of not dogs”? I know you are fond of calling atheism a “faith” (perhaps in an attempt to level the playing field?) but you are completely incorrect in doing so.

As for your question regarding a solidarity of worldview, the answer is no. Not all atheists are logical. Many merely consider the supposed existence of gods and demons and ghosts self-evidently absurd and go on about their lives without pondering it further. Some, like me, are interested in philosophy, science and logic; but even they (we) apply these things in different ways. I could just as easily ask you: if God’s way is the only way, why are there so many conflicting (but supposedly exclusive) versions of it?. Christians aren’t robots, and neither are atheists. We are all affected by a multitude of factors like our environment, our past and what we want to be true (although on that last point I believe I am less prone than most, if only because I make a concerted effort to be so).

And so if I think to myself “why is abortion wrong?” I put it through the prism not of theology or atheism but of critical thought. I see that it is a bad thing in many ways for society as a whole and I see that if principles I cherish are applied to it (particularly freedom) it is as inherently wrong as murder or theft. But that is my own view…and I daresay many libertarians and atheists would disagree.

I’d love the chance to grill them on the subject: I think I’d win that debate.

3.3% – Get your facts straight Darth Baby !

But they often don’t predate Jewish law. We speak of the Judeo-Christian ethic whereby what we call common law is based on old Jewish civil law (not to be confused with priestly or religious law). But in the end your position argues not for the innate logical basis of the law and conscience we do have, put rather that a Creator has predisposition all mankind everywhere with a conscience and that conscience is the guide in laying down law in different societies which uniformly (for the most part) echo the conscience in which all humankind is endowed.

Of course there are corruptions of the law of nature and the revealed moral law of God; polygamy, human sacrifice (which is a primoridal human perversion of God providing a sacrifice for our sins), trial by gauntlet, etc., but those corruptions are expected when dealing with a corrupted humanity.

Such fellowship would require me to divest myself of what I prize most highly: the freedom and ability to apply critical, rational thought to everything around me, without exception.

That’s a red herring. I’ve never belonged to any fellowship which “would require me to divest myself of the ability to apply critical, rational thought.” A fellowship is a banding together of like-minded people. You still have medieval understanding of religion, which is surprising given your ability to “apply critical, rational thought.”

I’m sure every atheist and secular prides themselves in “applying critical, rational thought”, but other than their criticisms of Judeo-Christian thought and religion in general, there is little to recommend atheism given its own lack of worldview unity. For surely if atheism represents the highest pinnacle of man’s dispassionate reasonings and “critical, rational thought”, then there wouldn’t be atheists on both sides of the abortion debate, who are socialists versus constitutional republicanism, who believe in just war versus anti-war all the time.

You see, the very point upon which you rest your atheist worldview betrays the very tenets of your own faith because obviously if its a matter of conducting ones life according to the principles of rationality, critical thinking and objectivity then it should lead all atheists down the same road irrespective of the cultures they may live in, right? That’s your point isn’t it, you’re so dispassionately critical and objective in your thinking that even the cultural morass around you cannot easily prevent you from coming to some universal materialistic, atheistic way to conduct ones life and politics. I mean, that’s what you strive for, right, doing the singularly right thing and being faithful to the ideological constructs of your own mind which should be smililarly echoed in all like-minded, self-respecting athiests who have a critical, materialistic viewpoint?

I don’t believe the random firing of synapses that have randomly evolved over eons can create such logical and legal artifices.

I don’t either, as such. But it would be misrepresenting the process of evolution somewhat to call it “random”. Evolution is not random in the way that you appear to be suggesting, although it is random in the sense that it doesn’t have an aim or a “goal”. Many people (whether they subscribe to the theory or not) mistakenly believe that evolution is supposedly a process of refinement, ultimately resulting in a creature that is “better” than what it began with. I assume this is because they wish to apply some sort of consciousness to the process, in keeping with the terms in which they are accustomed to viewing the world.

While one of its mechanisms is the (indisputable) presence of tiny random changes over generations, evolution is actually quite non-random in that it has the same inevitable result every time: that of allowing those species to survive that have demonstrated the greatest talent for survival. Over time even a small difference in ability can doom one species while ensuring the survival of another.

So it comes as no surprise to me that humans, groomed for survival as they are, have developed a “conscience” which dictates that such things as murder are unacceptable. That same conscience, which causes a man to empathize (i.e. equate his own security and chances of survival) with potential murder victims, is quite naturally extended to the most helpless among us…babies. Add to that the parental instinct (which probably arose in much the same way as survival instinct, for groups without parental instinct would have died off long ago) and it’s easy to extend that empathy to an unborn child as well.

And that’s more or less how it is for me. I love my life. I have done many things that others only dream of. If I died tomorrow my life would still have been worth living ten times over. If I feel this way about my life, how can I deny the possibility of such a wonderful thing…life…to anyone else without a good reason?

In my mind, personal convenience is not a good reason to snuff out a life I helped create, even if I did so inadvertently. And evolutionarily speaking, a species that has concern for its unborn is a species that will survive.

the conscience…is often obscured by external manipulation. I don’t think you realize how influenced you have been by Judeo-Christian reasoning, having been brought up in western civilization steeped in Christian traditions and moral law.

I do not deny it. In a vacuum it would be impossible to distinguish my own morality from Judeo-Christian morality. But we don’t live in a vacuum: there are many societies which teach similar moral laws as Christianity but which arose independently (and which often predate) Christianity.

This suggests that morality itself is human, not given by the Christian God or any other supernatural entity. If this is true, the various world religions have merely served to codify what was already in existence; man’s self-imposed boundaries, brought about by the necessity of survival. This is what Jefferson misses, living as he did before the theory of evolution came along: society is not moral because its people were created with innate morality: rather the need for society as a survival mechanism necessarily honed man’s ability to abide by common moral laws. In other words morality developed out of necessity, allowing men to live together in large, safe groups. Those who couldn’t abide by common moral codes would have been outcast and would not have survived very long. Morality is a mechanism for survival.

This is supported by the disparity that basic morality (rules against murder, thievery etc.) is the same all over the world but there are nonetheless great differences in the details of that morality. If everyone had been “given” the same morality we would have no problems, we would never see a “clash of civilization”. But different groups have developed within the version of morality which best ensured their survival and prosperity, so we do have somewhat different versions of it. This supports the evolutionary hypothesis much more strongly than it supports Jefferson’s notion that we were all given the same morality for the purpose of coexisting in a society.

Likewise I do not deny that St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas have contributed, if not to science per se, at least to the evolution of critical thought. But we must also remember that there were many men before them (and before Christianity) who contributed considerably more (i.e. the Greeks). I know you’ll take umbrage at this, but the astute minds of St. Augustine (who came up with one of my favorite quotes ever: “Lord, give me continence…but not yet”) and Aquinas were hampered by their emotional need to try to superimpose reason onto supernatural belief. Because of this many of their ideas (Aquinas’ prime mover, for example) were discredited in the early years of the so-called Enlightenment, as soon as it became other than a capital offense to question religion. In addition many of the supposedly moral precepts of the Greeks, Romans and early Christians (such as slavery) we now find to be disagreeable. But they were all necessary stepping stones.

If morality were indeed an immutable “gift”…it would never have changed. If, on the other hand, it is the result of evolution, you’d see exactly what we see today; a changing morality under which the conventions of our own society (i.e. premarital sex is okay but slavery isn’t) would have mystified the societies of the past.

We will probably always see eye to eye on many key issues, but I will never engage in a fellowship which requires belief in a God…although I take that statement as it was intended and so of course appreciate the sentiment. Such fellowship would require me to divest myself of what I prize most highly: the freedom and ability to apply critical, rational thought to everything around me, without exception. I think this is what makes mankind special, not his belief in the supernatural.

In fact in my view such belief can only be the result of “external manipulation”…otherwise you, Hank, would have equal chance of having been a Muslim or a Hindu. We know, of course, that you had almost zero chance of becoming either. It is an indisputable fact that most people subscribe to the religion of their parents (or at least their parent societies); if that isn’t a perfect example of “external manipulation”, I don’t know what is. All babies are atheists, as they say. But that doesn’t last long.

So I suppose we will have to settle for being of a similar ideological inclination rather than a similar religious inclination. Either way the conversation’ll be good.

(I know, that was bad.)

In a 1787 letter written by Thomas Jefferson to nephew Peter Carr:

3. Moral Philosophy. I think it lost time to attend lectures on this branch. He who made us would have been a pitiful bungler, if He had made the rules of our moral conduct a matter of science. For one man of science, there are thousands who are not. What would have become of them? Man was destined for society. His morality, therefore, was to be formed to this object. He was endowed with a sense of right and wrong, merely relative to this. This sense is as much a part of his nature, as the sense of hearing, seeing, feeling; it is the true foundation of morality …