Entries Tagged 'Church and theology' ↓

A local atheist and I had an impromptu debate on Wednesday about the basis of ethics: Can morality be an evolved trait? With his kind permission, I reproduce the debate here in an easy-to-read format.

Since we debated through Twitter, our replies had to be kept to that software’s 140-character limit. That was a challenge, considering the topic!

I debated Andy Welfle, whom I met in 2006 while he was working at The News-Sentinel as a writer and copy editor. (That’s a photo of him.) He’s a former Roman Catholic (baptized as a child, I presume) and he’s now managing director of the Fort Wayne Dance Collective — and is a member of FreeThought Fort Wayne, which, as far as I can tell, is a group dedicated to freely thinking about everything in the same naturalistic way. 

I’ve rearranged the order a little, combined quotes a bit and lightly edited to more closely follow the line of argument. (Andy is welcome to correct me if I got something wrong.) And I’ve deleted some “rabbit trails” — questions that were left unanswered just because the conversation went elsewhere.

awelfle: Huh. Katharine Hepburn was an atheist. She had a great quote about that: http://tinyurl.com/8mxd5w

jonswerens: That’s nice and quaint, but how does she know we should be kind to one another? Is she smuggling in some Christian ethics?

awelfle: You think that the golden rule is an idea original to Christians? Its an evolved trait, and has to come from within.

jonswerens: You mean: Evolved as in we slowly crafted it from older rules, or we slowly realized the rule as though it always existed?

awelfle: I think that as we starting existing in complex societies, we developed altruism because it makes it easier to coexist. For the most part, that is. There are always exceptions. I’m just saying religion isn’t necessary for morality.

jonswerens: OK, there are always exceptions. By what standard are exceptions to the rule OK? And by what standard do you oppose Prop 8?

awelfle: And my personal opposition to Prop 8 stems from my want to see gay ppl be able to marry who they want.

jonswerens: What if Calif. hasn’t evolved enough yet and won’t evolve enough for 500 years? By what standard do you say Prop 8 is wrong?

awelfle: How did Prop 8 get mixed in here? (-:

jonswerens: Prop 8 got mixed in here because it’s a case of how your “evolution of morality” doesn’t work. Why does what you “want” matter?

awelfle: So you’re saying that morality is dictated to me by an invisible man in the sky? That humans are intrinsically bad and have to follow what is written in an old book or else we’re condemned to ETERNAL punishment? Sorry, I don’t buy that.

jonswerens: We’re talking about what you believe, not me. If morality evolves, how can you say the Prop 8 vote is bad or wrong?

awelfle: It seems to me that your argument assumes there is some sort of end-goal in evolution. When in fact, it is just a gradual adaptation to circumstances that is encountered at that particular epoc in time.

jonswerens: Um, actually, no, that’s not my argument. I thought that was *yours*.

awelfle: But intrinsically, morality is a personal thing. If God dictates morality, why do I feel one way, and you another? How could there be a sociopath with no moral structure? Did he make a conscious decision to abandon God; and  that’s why he’s the way he is?

jonswerens: OK, so then, this Golden Rule. It doesn’t necessarily apply to all cultures or all times. That’s what you’re getting at?

awelfle: And yes, but I think that there would have to be a vastly diff. world than ours if the Golden Rule wouldn’t be appropriate.

jonswerens: I think the very fact of this debate proves that there is something beyond mere matter. Where do the rules of logic reside?

awelfle: Where do the rules of logic reside? I don’t think I understand the question. Do you mean where they are based? In the human mind, I guess. Or mathematically, depending on what sort of logic.

jonswerens: So, is math something that’s universal? Or can one of your alternate worlds feature math in which 2 + 2 = 7 1/2?

awelfle: People can disagree with my morality because we’re all different. Different genetics, different life experiences, different situations. And at the risk of getting too extentialist, I don’t think we can say that anyone is is *truly* right or wrong.

jonswerens: But if I say 2 + 2 does equal 7 1/2, can I claim my different life experience led me to that conclusion? In other words, are there any universal standards at all? If every human died today, would 2 + 2 still equal 4?

awelfle: Morality isn’t as clear-cut as math. Moreover, what is a “2″ to me, may not represent the same thing to someone else.

jonswerens: Ah, so how about words? Or do you doubt that what your typing is understandable to me?

awelfle: Re: 2+2 if every human died today, it wouldn’t matter. and re: your last tweet, that’s a leading question. (con’t…)

jonswerens: What’s wrong with a leading question?

awelfle: …We have to make some assumptions about understandability, otherwise, we’d never be able to communicate.

jonswerens: Sorry, but I don’t accept your assumptions without some proof.

awelfle: Then I guess we’re at an impasse. My expertise at this doesn’t allow me to prove to you that we’re speaking the same language … without actually speaking the language.

jonswerens: Actually, starting with your philosophy, no, we do not even have language, let alone a conversation. By assumptions, you mean what we Christians call “faith.”

awelfle: Please explain how making assumptions about communicating ideas translates into faith.

jonswerens: Well, what is faith? Bible says: “Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” So the obvious attack on Christianity — I believe something I cannot prove — is moot. We *all* believe things we cannot prove. So, when I look across this world with strange beings and curious activities, what assumptions make the most sense? I posit that the atheist cannot stay true to his beliefs. If he does, he loses logic, language and love, because they, like anything else worth living for in this world, are not “provable.”

awelfle: But I wasn’t going after Christian faith — I was going after a god-defined morality!

jonswerens: Ah, and I was going after a so-called godless morality, which can evidently be one thing on Monday and something else on Thursday.

awelfle: Well put, re: atheists cannot stay true to his beliefs. We should pick this up another day. Tho atheism is the LACK of a belief, specifically in a god. God cannot be the only answer for logic, love, etc.

Thanks for the debate, Andy. I hope we can pick this up again soon.

What’s the matter with Newsweek’s cover story on gay marriage? It’s the journalism, stupid:

It looks like Newsweek, in the face of an economic disaster, has decided to do the full monty, becoming an out-and-out opinion-oriented magazine.

The problem is: the readers never got the memo. Most people thought newsmagazines were supposed to be objective and have not been aware of the two decades of soul-searching about how to insert more opinion. So suddenly they wake up and this magazine that used to be balanced has come out of the closet as an overt opinion magazine. …

Most stunning was editor Jon Meacham’s defense of the cover story, in which he says “this conservative resort to biblical authority is the worst kind of fundamentalism.” …

This cover may ultimately become known less for its significance in the culture wars but as a watershed in the history of American journalism.

Great perspective. Hat tip: getreligion.org

If you don’t have time to read Newsweek’s cover story on how a reporter discovered that the Bible actually supports gay marriage when you squint really hard, here are the main points:

• The Bible’s examples of marriage are horrendous polygamous slave-owners.
• The Bible “offers inspiration and warning on the subjects of love, marriage, family and community.”
• The Bible doesn’t explicitly say marriage is between one man and one woman.
• The Bible doesn’t say David and Jonathan were homosexual lovers, but it’s fun to imagine they were.
• The Apostle Paul was tough on homosexuality.
• One guy the reporter knows says Paul was actually talking about something else. Violent people, maybe.
• The Bible “provides conceptual shelter for anti-Semites.”
• Thankfully, newsmagazines have no similar problems mishandling Biblical texts.
• Despite what Newsweek thinks, almost all churches say that gay marriage is sinful.
• Newsweek does not own a phone book, and thus cannot call any of these churches for comment.
• When the Bible says something you want to do is wrong, then the Bible is outdated.
• When the Bible says something you want to do is right, then the Bible is beautiful.

Hope that helps.

A post from The Good City:

A post from The Good City:

It’s time to unveil my new project that I mentioned a few weeks ago.

Welcome to The Good City, a web site Scott Greider and I hope to develop into a resource for caring citydwellers, all from a Christian perspective.

The goal, as we say on the web site:

Calling Christians to consider the city and calling the city to consider Christ.

Scott and I love our city and want to see it succeed as a good city. Join us over at The Good City and comment.

“Our people don’t so much need to have their heads stored as to have their hearts touched and they stand in the greatest need of that sort of preaching that has the greatest tendency to do this.”

– Jonathan Edwards

Until midnight on Thursday, every book and study guide at John Piper’s web site are only $5. That includes hardbacks.

I already have three Piper books, “Desiring God,” “Don’t Waste Your Life” and “What Jesus Demands From the World.”

If I had to recommend only one Piper book, this would be it. In fact, what’s always been great about Piper’s ministry is how unselfish it is. For example, the entire text of “Desiring God” is online, and in an easy-to-read-online format.

Note that the subtitle for “Desiring God” is “Meditations of a Christian Hedonist.” In the book’s introduction, Piper states five convictions upon which he builds his philosophy of Christian Hedonism:

1. The longing to be happy is a universal human experience, and it is good, not sinful.
2. We should never try to deny or resist our longing to be happy, as though it were a bad impulse. Instead we should seek to intensify this longing and nourish it with whatever will provide the deepest and most enduring satisfaction.
3. The deepest and most enduring happiness is found only in God.
4. The happiness we find in God reaches its consummation when it is shared with others in the manifold ways of love.
5. To the extent we try to abandon the pursuit of our own pleasure, we fail to honor God and love people. Or, to put it positively: the pursuit of pleasure is a necessary part of all worship and virtue. That is, The chief end of man is to glorify God BY enjoying him forever.

It’s a great book that cannot be too highly recommended.

Oh, and their servers have been very, very busy, so you may want to wait and order later in the evening or early in the morning.

Related: We Want You To Be a Christian Hedonist!