Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Manhattan Declaration — Where are the theistic evolutionists?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

About 150 Christian leaders were the original signatories of the recent manifesto asserting the sanctity of life, traditional marriage, and liberty of conscience — the Manhattan Declaration. At the time of this writing, over a 100,000 have signed it (including me). I encourage readers of UD to read the document and sign it if it reflects your views on God and culture.

Of the 150 original signers, I know about 25 personally. Interestingly, the original signers seem overwhelmingly pro-ID. That raises the question why no notable theistic evolutionists are signers (e.g., Francis Collins). To be sure, signers such as Tim Keller and Dinesh D’Souza have indicated an openness to evolutionary theory. But I’m not finding any among the signers who are adamantly committed to theistic evolution, seeing it as the only way to be both scientifically and theologically responsible.

Perhaps I’m missing something here. If so, I’m happy to be disabused. But is it possible that ID is friendlier to classic Christian teaching on the sanctity of life, traditional marriage, and liberty of conscience than theistic evolution? It not, I’d like to see the names of theistic evolutionists who are also signers of the Manhattan Declaration.

——

Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience
November 20, 2009

The following is the text of the Manhattan Declaration signed by 149 pro-life and Catholic and evangelical and Orthodox Christian leaders. LifeNews.com supports the pro-life aims of the resolution.

http://manhattandeclaration.org

Preamble

Christians are heirs of a 2,000-year tradition of proclaiming God’s word, seeking justice in our societies, resisting tyranny, and reaching out with compassion to the poor, oppressed and suffering.

While fully acknowledging the imperfections and shortcomings of Christian institutions and communities in all ages, we claim the heritage of those Christians who defended innocent life by rescuing discarded babies from trash heaps in Roman cities and publicly denouncing the Empire’s sanctioning of infanticide. We remember with reverence those believers who sacrificed their lives by remaining in Roman cities to tend the sick and dying during the plagues, and who died bravely in the coliseums rather than deny their Lord.

After the barbarian tribes overran Europe, Christian monasteries preserved not only the Bible but also the literature and art of Western culture. It was Christians who combated the evil of slavery: Papal edicts in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries decried the practice of slavery and first excommunicated anyone involved in the slave trade; evangelical Christians in England, led by John Wesley and William Wilberforce, put an end to the slave trade in that country. Christians under Wilberforce’s leadership also formed hundreds of societies for helping the poor, the imprisoned, and child laborers chained to machines.

In Europe, Christians challenged the divine claims of kings and successfully fought to establish the rule of law and balance of governmental powers, which made modern democracy possible. And in America, Christian women stood at the vanguard of the suffrage movement. The great civil rights crusades of the 1950s and 60s were led by Christians claiming the Scriptures and asserting the glory of the image of God in every human being regardless of race, religion, age or class.

This same devotion to human dignity has led Christians in the last decade to work to end the dehumanizing scourge of human trafficking and sexual slavery, bring compassionate care to AIDS sufferers in Africa, and assist in a myriad of other human rights causes­from providing clean water in developing nations to providing homes for tens of thousands of children orphaned by war, disease and gender discrimination.

Like those who have gone before us in the faith, Christians today are called to proclaim the Gospel of costly grace, to protect the intrinsic dignity of the human person and to stand for the common good. In being true to its own calling, the call to discipleship, the church through service to others can make a profound contribution to the public good.

Declaration

We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians, have gathered, beginning in New York on September 28, 2009, to make the following declaration, which we sign as individuals, not on behalf of our organizations, but speaking to and from our communities. We act together in obedience to the one true God, the triune God of holiness and love, who has laid total claim on our lives and by that claim calls us with believers in all ages and all nations to seek and defend the good of all who bear his image. We set forth this declaration in light of the truth that is grounded in Holy Scripture, in natural human reason (which is itself, in our view, the gift of a beneficent God), and in the very nature of the human person. We call upon all people of goodwill, believers and non-believers alike, to consider carefully and reflect critically on the issues we here address as we, with St. Paul, commend this appeal to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God.

While the whole scope of Christian moral concern, including a special concern for the poor and vulnerable, claims our attention, we are especially troubled that in our nation today the lives of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly are severely threatened; that the institution of marriage, already buffeted by promiscuity, infidelity and divorce, is in jeopardy of being redefined to accommodate fashionable ideologies; that freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardized by those who would use the instruments of coercion to compel persons of faith to compromise their deepest convictions.

Because the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage as a union of husband and wife, and the freedom of conscience and religion are foundational principles of justice and the common good, we are compelled by our Christian faith to speak and act in their defense. In this declaration we affirm: 1) the profound, inherent, and equal dignity of every human being as a creature fashioned in the very image of God, possessing inherent rights of equal dignity and life; 2) marriage as a conjugal union of man and woman, ordained by God from the creation, and historically understood by believers and non-believers alike, to be the most basic institution in society and; 3) religious liberty, which is grounded in the character of God, the example of Christ, and the inherent freedom and dignity of human beings created in the divine image.

We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences to affirm our right­and, more importantly, to embrace our obligation­to speak and act in defense of these truths. We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence. It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season. May God help us not to fail in that duty.

Life

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Genesis 1:27

I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full. John 10:10

Although public sentiment has moved in a pro-life direction, we note with sadness that pro-abortion ideology prevails today in our government. The present administration is led and staffed by those who want to make abortions legal at any stage of fetal development, and who want to provide abortions at taxpayer expense. Majorities in both houses of Congress hold pro-abortion views. The Supreme Court, whose infamous 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade stripped the unborn of legal protection, continues to treat elective abortion as a fundamental constitutional right, though it has upheld as constitutionally permissible some limited restrictions on abortion. The President says that he wants to reduce the “need” for abortion­a commendable goal. But he has also pledged to make abortion more easily and widely available by eliminating laws prohibiting government funding, requiring waiting periods for women seeking abortions, and parental notification for abortions performed on minors. The elimination of these important and effective pro-life laws cannot reasonably be expected to do other than significantly increase the number of elective abortions by which the lives of countless children are snuffed out prior to birth. Our commitment to the sanctity of life is not a matter of partisan loyalty, for we recognize that in the thirty-six years since Roe v. Wade, elected officials and appointees of both major political parties have been complicit in giving legal sanction to what Pope John Paul II described as “the culture of death.” We call on all officials in our country, elected and appointed, to protect and serve every member of our society, including the most marginalized, voiceless, and vulnerable among us.

A culture of death inevitably cheapens life in all its stages and conditions by promoting the belief that lives that are imperfect, immature or inconvenient are discardable. As predicted by many prescient persons, the cheapening of life that began with abortion has now metastasized. For example, human embryo-destructive research and its public funding are promoted in the name of science and in the cause of developing treatments and cures for diseases and injuries. The President and many in Congress favor the expansion of embryo- research to include the taxpayer funding of so-called “therapeutic cloning.” This would result in the industrial mass production of human embryos to be killed for the purpose of producing genetically customized stem cell lines and tissues. At the other end of life, an increasingly powerful movement to promote assisted suicide and “voluntary” euthanasia threatens the lives of vulnerable elderly and disabled persons. Eugenic notions such as the doctrine of lebensunwertes Leben (“life unworthy of life”) were first advanced in the 1920s by intellectuals in the elite salons of America and Europe. Long buried in ignominy after the horrors of the mid-twentieth century, they have returned from the grave. The only difference is that now the doctrines of the eugenicists are dressed up in the language of “liberty,” “autonomy,” and “choice.”

We will be united and untiring in our efforts to roll back the license to kill that began with the abandonment of the unborn to abortion. We will work, as we have always worked, to bring assistance, comfort, and care to pregnant women in need and to those who have been victimized by abortion, even as we stand resolutely against the corrupt and degrading notion that it can somehow be in the best interests of women to submit to the deliberate killing of their unborn children. Our message is, and ever shall be, that the just, humane, and truly Christian answer to problem pregnancies is for all of us to love and care for mother and child alike.

A truly prophetic Christian witness will insistently call on those who have been entrusted with temporal power to fulfill the first responsibility of government: to protect the weak and vulnerable against violent attack, and to do so with no favoritism, partiality, or discrimination. The Bible enjoins us to defend those who cannot defend themselves, to speak for those who cannot themselves speak. And so we defend and speak for the unborn, the disabled, and the dependent. What the Bible and the light of reason make clear, we must make clear. We must be willing to defend, even at risk and cost to ourselves and our institutions, the lives of our brothers and sisters at every stage of development and in every condition.

Our concern is not confined to our own nation. Around the globe, we are witnessing cases of genocide and “ethnic cleansing,” the failure to assist those who are suffering as innocent victims of war, the neglect and abuse of children, the exploitation of vulnerable laborers, the sexual trafficking of girls and young women, the abandonment of the aged, racial oppression and discrimination, the persecution of believers of all faiths, and the failure to take steps necessary to halt the spread of preventable diseases like AIDS. We see these travesties as flowing from the same loss of the sense of the dignity of the human person and the sanctity of human life that drives the abortion industry and the movements for assisted suicide, euthanasia, and human cloning for biomedical research. And so ours is, as it must be, a truly consistent ethic of love and life for all humans in all circumstances.

Marriage

The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, for she was taken out of man.” For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. Genesis 2:23-24 This is a profound mystery­but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. Ephesians 5:32-33 In Scripture, the creation of man and woman, and their one-flesh union as husband and wife, is the crowning achievement of God’s creation. In the transmission of life and the nurturing of children, men and women joined as spouses are given the great honor of being partners with God Himself. Marriage then, is the first institution of human society­indeed it is the institution on which all other human institutions have their foundation. In the Christian tradition we refer to marriage as “holy matrimony” to signal the fact that it is an institution ordained by God, and blessed by Christ in his participation at a wedding in Cana of Galilee. In the Bible, God Himself blesses and holds marriage in the highest esteem.

Vast human experience confirms that marriage is the original and most important institution for sustaining the health, education, and welfare of all persons in a society. Where marriage is honored, and where there is a flourishing marriage culture, everyone benefits­the spouses themselves, their children, the communities and societies in which they live. Where the marriage culture begins to erode, social pathologies of every sort quickly manifest themselves. Unfortunately, we have witnessed over the course of the past several decades a serious erosion of the marriage culture in our own country. Perhaps the most telling­and alarming­indicator is the out-of-wedlock birth rate. Less than fifty years ago, it was under 5 percent. Today it is over 40 percent. Our society­and particularly its poorest and most vulnerable sectors, where the out-of-wedlock birth rate is much higher even than the national average­is paying a huge price in delinquency, drug abuse, crime, incarceration, hopelessness, and despair. Other indicators are widespread non-marital sexual cohabitation and a devastatingly high rate of divorce.

We confess with sadness that Christians and our institutions have too often scandalously failed to uphold the institution of marriage and to model for the world the true meaning of marriage. Insofar as we have too easily embraced the culture of divorce and remained silent about social practices that undermine the dignity of marriage we repent, and call upon all Christians to do the same.

To strengthen families, we must stop glamorizing promiscuity and infidelity and restore among our people a sense of the profound beauty, mystery, and holiness of faithful marital love. We must reform ill-advised policies that contribute to the weakening of the institution of marriage, including the discredited idea of unilateral divorce. We must work in the legal, cultural, and religious domains to instill in young people a sound understanding of what marriage is, what it requires, and why it is worth the commitment and sacrifices that faithful spouses make.

The impulse to redefine marriage in order to recognize same-sex and multiple partner relationships is a symptom, rather than the cause, of the erosion of the marriage culture. It reflects a loss of understanding of the meaning of marriage as embodied in our civil and religious law and in the philosophical tradition that contributed to shaping the law. Yet it is critical that the impulse be resisted, for yielding to it would mean abandoning the possibility of restoring a sound understanding of marriage and, with it, the hope of rebuilding a healthy marriage culture. It would lock into place the false and destructive belief that marriage is all about romance and other adult satisfactions, and not, in any intrinsic way, about procreation and the unique character and value of acts and relationships whose meaning is shaped by their aptness for the generation, promotion and protection of life. In spousal communion and the rearing of children (who, as gifts of God, are the fruit of their parents’ marital love), we discover the profound reasons for and benefits of the marriage covenant.

We acknowledge that there are those who are disposed towards homosexual and polyamorous conduct and relationships, just as there are those who are disposed towards other forms of immoral conduct. We have compassion for those so disposed; we respect them as human beings possessing profound, inherent, and equal dignity; and we pay tribute to the men and women who strive, often with little assistance, to resist the temptation to yield to desires that they, no less than we, regard as wayward. We stand with them, even when they falter. We, no less than they, are sinners who have fallen short of God’s intention for our lives. We, no less than they, are in constant need of God’s patience, love and forgiveness. We call on the entire Christian community to resist sexual immorality, and at the same time refrain from disdainful condemnation of those who yield to it. Our rejection of sin, though resolute, must never become the rejection of sinners. For every sinner, regardless of the sin, is loved by God, who seeks not our destruction but rather the conversion of our hearts. Jesus calls all who wander from the path of virtue to “a more excellent way.” As his disciples we will reach out in love to assist all who hear the call and wish to answer it.

We further acknowledge that there are sincere people who disagree with us, and with the teaching of the Bible and Christian tradition, on questions of sexual morality and the nature of marriage. Some who enter into same- sex and polyamorous relationships no doubt regard their unions as truly marital. They fail to understand, however, that marriage is made possible by the sexual complementarity of man and woman, and that the comprehensive, multi-level sharing of life that marriage is includes bodily unity of the sort that unites husband and wife biologically as a reproductive unit. This is because the body is no mere extrinsic instrument of the human person, but truly part of the personal reality of the human being. Human beings are not merely centers of consciousness or emotion, or minds, or spirits, inhabiting non-personal bodies. The human person is a dynamic unity of body, mind, and spirit. Marriage is what one man and one woman establish when, forsaking all others and pledging lifelong commitment, they found a sharing of life at every level of being­the biological, the emotional, the dispositional, the rational, the spiritual­on a commitment that is sealed, completed and actualized by loving sexual intercourse in which the spouses become one flesh, not in some merely metaphorical sense, but by fulfilling together the behavioral conditions of procreation. That is why in the Christian tradition, and historically in Western law, consummated marriages are not dissoluble or annullable on the ground of infertility, even though the nature of the marital relationship is shaped and structured by its intrinsic orientation to the great good of procreation.

We understand that many of our fellow citizens, including some Christians, believe that the historic definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is a denial of equality or civil rights. They wonder what to say in reply to the argument that asserts that no harm would be done to them or to anyone if the law of the community were to confer upon two men or two women who are living together in a sexual partnership the status of being “married.” It would not, after all, affect their own marriages, would it? On inspection, however, the argument that laws governing one kind of marriage will not affect another cannot stand. Were it to prove anything, it would prove far too much: the assumption that the legal status of one set of marriage relationships affects no other would not only argue for same sex partnerships; it could be asserted with equal validity for polyamorous partnerships, polygamous households, even adult brothers, sisters, or brothers and sisters living in incestuous relationships. Should these, as a matter of equality or civil rights, be recognized as lawful marriages, and would they have no effects on other relationships? No. The truth is that marriage is not something abstract or neutral that the law may legitimately define and re-define to please those who are powerful and influential.

No one has a civil right to have a non-marital relationship treated as a marriage. Marriage is an objective reality­a covenantal union of husband and wife­that it is the duty of the law to recognize and support for the sake of justice and the common good. If it fails to do so, genuine social harms follow. First, the religious liberty of those for whom this is a matter of conscience is jeopardized. Second, the rights of parents are abused as family life and sex education programs in schools are used to teach children that an enlightened understanding recognizes as “marriages” sexual partnerships that many parents believe are intrinsically non- marital and immoral. Third, the common good of civil society is damaged when the law itself, in its critical pedagogical function, becomes a tool for eroding a sound understanding of marriage on which the flourishing of the marriage culture in any society vitally depends. Sadly, we are today far from having a thriving marriage culture. But if we are to begin the critically important process of reforming our laws and mores to rebuild such a culture, the last thing we can afford to do is to re-define marriage in such a way as to embody in our laws a false proclamation about what marriage is.

And so it is out of love (not “animus”) and prudent concern for the common good (not “prejudice”), that we pledge to labor ceaselessly to preserve the legal definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman and to rebuild the marriage culture. How could we, as Christians, do otherwise? The Bible teaches us that marriage is a central part of God’s creation covenant. Indeed, the union of husband and wife mirrors the bond between Christ and his church. And so just as Christ was willing, out of love, to give Himself up for the church in a complete sacrifice, we are willing, lovingly, to make whatever sacrifices are required of us for the sake of the inestimable treasure that is marriage.

Religious Liberty

The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners. Isaiah 61:1

Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s. Matthew 22:21

The struggle for religious liberty across the centuries has been long and arduous, but it is not a novel idea or recent development. The nature of religious liberty is grounded in the character of God Himself, the God who is most fully known in the life and work of Jesus Christ. Determined to follow Jesus faithfully in life and death, the early Christians appealed to the manner in which the Incarnation had taken place: “Did God send Christ, as some suppose, as a tyrant brandishing fear and terror? Not so, but in gentleness and meekness…, for compulsion is no attribute of God” (Epistle to Diognetus 7.3-4). Thus the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the example of Christ Himself and in the very dignity of the human person created in the image of God­a dignity, as our founders proclaimed, inherent in every human, and knowable by all in the exercise of right reason.

Christians confess that God alone is Lord of the conscience. Immunity from religious coercion is the cornerstone of an unconstrained conscience. No one should be compelled to embrace any religion against his will, nor should persons of faith be forbidden to worship God according to the dictates of conscience or to express freely and publicly their deeply held religious convictions. What is true for individuals applies to religious communities as well.

It is ironic that those who today assert a right to kill the unborn, aged and disabled and also a right to engage in immoral sexual practices, and even a right to have relationships integrated around these practices be recognized and blessed by law­such persons claiming these “rights” are very often in the vanguard of those who would trample upon the freedom of others to express their religious and moral commitments to the sanctity of life and to the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife.

We see this, for example, in the effort to weaken or eliminate conscience clauses, and therefore to compel pro- life institutions (including religiously affiliated hospitals and clinics), and pro-life physicians, surgeons, nurses, and other health care professionals, to refer for abortions and, in certain cases, even to perform or participate in abortions. We see it in the use of anti-discrimination statutes to force religious institutions, businesses, and service providers of various sorts to comply with activities they judge to be deeply immoral or go out of business. After the judicial imposition of “same-sex marriage” in Massachusetts, for example, Catholic Charities chose with great reluctance to end its century-long work of helping to place orphaned children in good homes rather than comply with a legal mandate that it place children in same-sex households in violation of Catholic moral teaching. In New Jersey, after the establishment of a quasi-marital “civil unions” scheme, a Methodist institution was stripped of its tax exempt status when it declined, as a matter of religious conscience, to permit a facility it owned and operated to be used for ceremonies blessing homosexual unions. In Canada and some European nations, Christian clergy have been prosecuted for preaching Biblical norms against the practice of homosexuality. New hate-crime laws in America raise the specter of the same practice here.

In recent decades a growing body of case law has paralleled the decline in respect for religious values in the media, the academy and political leadership, resulting in restrictions on the free exercise of religion. We view this as an ominous development, not only because of its threat to the individual liberty guaranteed to every person, regardless of his or her faith, but because the trend also threatens the common welfare and the culture of freedom on which our system of republican government is founded. Restrictions on the freedom of conscience or the ability to hire people of one’s own faith or conscientious moral convictions for religious institutions, for example, undermines the viability of the intermediate structures of society, the essential buffer against the overweening authority of the state, resulting in the soft despotism Tocqueville so prophetically warned of.1 Disintegration of civil society is a prelude to tyranny.

As Christians, we take seriously the Biblical admonition to respect and obey those in authority. We believe in law and in the rule of law. We recognize the duty to comply with laws whether we happen to like them or not, unless the laws are gravely unjust or require those subject to them to do something unjust or otherwise immoral. The biblical purpose of law is to preserve order and serve justice and the common good; yet laws that are unjust­and especially laws that purport to compel citizens to do what is unjust­undermine the common good, rather than serve it.

Going back to the earliest days of the church, Christians have refused to compromise their proclamation of the gospel. In Acts 4, Peter and John were ordered to stop preaching. Their answer was, “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God. For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.” Through the centuries, Christianity has taught that civil disobedience is not only permitted, but sometimes required. There is no more eloquent defense of the rights and duties of religious conscience than the one offered by Martin Luther King, Jr., in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail. Writing from an explicitly Christian perspective, and citing Christian writers such as Augustine and Aquinas, King taught that just laws elevate and ennoble human beings because they are rooted in the moral law whose ultimate source is God Himself. Unjust laws degrade human beings. Inasmuch as they can claim no authority beyond sheer human will, they lack any power to bind in conscience. King’s willingness to go to jail, rather than comply with legal injustice, was exemplary and inspiring.

Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family. We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.

Dr. Daniel Akin President, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary (Wake Forest, NC)

Most Rev. Peter J. Akinola Primate, Anglican Church of Nigeria (Abika, Nigeria)

Randy Alcorn Founder and Director, Eternal Perspective Ministries (EPM) (Sandy, OR)

Rt. Rev. David Anderson President and CEO, American Anglican Council (Atlanta, GA)

Leith Anderson President of National Association of Evangelicals (Washington, DC)

Charlotte K. Ardizzone TV Show Host and Speaker, INSP Television (Charlotte, NC)

Kay Arthur CEO and Co-founder, Precept Ministries International (Chattanooga, TN)

Dr. Mark L. Bailey President, Dallas Theological Seminary (Dallas, TX)

His Grace, The Right Reverend Bishop Basil Essey The Right Reverend Bishop of the Diocese of Wichita and Mid-America (Wichita, KS)

Joel Belz Founder, World Magazine (Asheville, NC)

Rev. Michael L. Beresford Managing Director of Church Relations, Billy Graham Evangelistic Assn. (Charlotte, NC)

Ken Boa President, Reflections Ministries (Atlanta, GA)

Joseph Bottum Editor of First Things (New York, NY)

Pastor Randy & Sarah Brannon Senior Pastor, Grace Community Church (Madera, CA)

Steve Brown National radio broadcaster, Key Life (Maitland, FL)

Dr. Robert C. Cannada, Jr. Chancellor and CEO of Reformed Theological Seminary (Orlando, FL)

Galen Carey Director of Government Affairs, National Association of Evangelicals (Washington, DC)

Dr. Bryan Chapell President, Covenant Theological Seminary (St. Louis, MO)

Scott Chapman Senior Pastor, The Chapel (Libertyville, IL)

Most Rev. Charles J. Chaput Archbishop, Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Denver, CO

Timothy Clinton President, American Association of Christian Counselors (Forest, VA)

Chuck Colson Founder, the Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview (Lansdowne, VA)

Most Rev. Salvatore Joseph Cordileone Bishop, Roman Catholic Diocese of Oakland, CA

Dr. Gary Culpepper Associate Professor, Providence College (Providence, RI)

Jim Daly President and CEO, Focus on the Family (Colorado Springs, CO)

Marjorie Dannenfelser President, Susan B. Anthony List (Arlington, VA)

Rev. Daniel Delgado Board of Directors, National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference & Pastor, Third Day Missions Church (Staten Island, NY)

Dr. James Dobson Founder, Focus on the Family (Colorado Springs, CO)

Dr. David Dockery President, Union University (Jackson, TN)

Most Rev. Timothy Dolan Archbishop, Roman Catholic Diocese of New York, NY

Dr. William Donohue President, Catholic League (New York, NY)

Dr. James T. Draper, Jr. President Emeritus, LifeWay (Nashville, TN)

Dinesh D’Souza Writer & Speaker (Rancho Santa Fe, CA)

Most Rev. Robert Wm. Duncan Archbishop and Primate, Anglican Church in North America (Ambridge, PA )

Joni Eareckson Tada Founder and CEO, Joni and Friends International Disability Center (Agoura Hills, CA)

Dr. Michael Easley President Emeritus, Moody Bible Institute (Chicago, IL)

Dr. William Edgar Professor, Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia, PA)

Brett Elder Executive Director, Stewardship Council (Grand Rapids, MI)

Rev. Joel Elowsky Drew University ( Madison, NJ)

Stuart Epperson Co-Founder and Chariman of the Board, Salem Communications Corporation ( Camarillo, CA)

Rev. Jonathan Falwell Senior Pastor, Thomas Road Baptist Church (Lynchburg, VA)

William J. Federer President, Amerisearch, Inc. (St. Louis, MO)

Fr. Joseph D. Fessio Founder and Editor, Ignatius Press (Ft. Collins, CO)

Carmen Fowler President & Executive Editor, Presbyterian Lay Committee (Lenoir, NC)

Maggie Gallagher President, Institute for Marriage and Public Policy and a co-author of The Case for Marriage (Manassas, VA)

Dr. Jim Garlow Senior Pastor, Skyline Church (La Mesa, CA)

Steven Garofalo Senior Consultant, Search and Assessment Services (Charlotte, NC)

Dr. Robert P. George McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University (Princeton, NJ)

Dr. Timothy George Dean and Professor of Divinity, Beeson Divinity School at Samford University (Birmingham, AL)

Thomas Gilson Director of Strategic Processes, Campus Crusade for Christ International (Norfolk, VA)

Dr. Jack Graham Pastor, Prestonwood Baptist Church (Plano, TX)

Dr. Wayne Grudem Research Professor of Theological and Biblical Studies, Phoenix Seminary (Phoenix, AZ)

Dr. Cornell “Corkie” Haan National Facilitator of Spiritual Unity, The Mission America Coalition (Palm Desert, CA)

Fr. Chad Hatfield Chancellor, CEO. And Archpriest, St Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary (Yonkers, NY)

Dr. Dennis Hollinger President and Professor of Christian Ethics, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (South Hamilton, MA)

Dr. Jeanette Hsieh Executive VP and Provost, Trinity International University (Deerfield, IL)

Dr. John A. Huffman, Jr. Senior Pastor, St. Andrews Presbyterian Church (Newport Beach, CA) and Chairman of the Board, Christianity Today International (Carol Stream, IL)

Rev. Ken Hutcherson Pastor, Antioch Bible Church (Kirkland, WA)

Bishop Harry R. Jackson, Jr. Senior Pastor, Hope Christian Church (Beltsville, MD)

Fr. Johannes L. Jacobse President, American Orthodox Institute and Editor, OrthodoxyToday.org (Naples, FL)

Jerry Jenkins Chairman of the board of trustees for Moody Bible Institute (Black Forest, CO)

Camille Kampouris Publisher, Kairos Journal

Emmanuel A. Kampouris Editorial Board, Kairos Journal

Rev. Tim Keller Senior Pastor, Redeemer Presbyterian Church (New York, NY)

Dr. Peter Kreeft Professor of Philosophy, Boston College (MA) and at the Kings Collge (NY)

Most Rev. Joseph E. Kurtz Archbishop, Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Louisville, KY

Jim Kushiner Editor, Touchstone (Chicago, IL)

Dr. Richard Land President, The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the SBC (Washington, DC)

Jim Law Senior Associate Pastor, First Baptist Church (Woodstock, GA)

Dr. Matthew Levering Associate Professor of Theology, Ave Maria University (Naples, FL)

Dr. Peter Lillback President, The Providence Forum (West Conshohocken, PA)

Dr. Duane Litfin President, Wheaton College (Wheaton, IL)

Rev. Herb Lusk Pastor, Greater Exodus Baptist Church (Philadelphia, PA)

His Eminence Adam Cardinal Maida Archbishop Emeritus, Roman Catholic Diocese of Detroit, MI

Most Rev. Richard J. Malone Bishop, Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland, ME

Rev. Francis Martin Professor of Sacred Scripture, Sacred Heart Major Seminary (Detroit, MI)

Dr. Joseph Mattera Bishop & Senior Pastor, Resurrection Church (Brooklyn, NY)

Phil Maxwell Pastor, Gateway Church (Bridgewater, NJ)

Josh McDowell Founder, Josh McDowell Ministries (Plano, TX)

Alex McFarland President, Southern Evangelical Seminary (Charlotte, NC)

Most Rev. George Dallas McKinney Bishop, & Founder and Pastor, St. Stephen’s Church of God in Christ (San Diego, CA)

Rt. Rev. Martyn Minns Missionary Bishop, Convocation of Anglicans of North America (Herndon, VA)

Dr. C. Ben Mitchell Graves Professor of Moral Philosophy, Union University (Jackson, TN)

Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr. President, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (Louisville, KY)

Dr. Russell D. Moore Senior VP for Academic Administration & Dean of the School of Theology, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (Louisville, KY)

Most Rev. John J. Myers Archbishop, Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Newark, NJ

Most Rev. Joseph F. Naumann Archbishop, Roman Catholic Diocese of Kansas City, KS

David Neff Editor-in-Chief, Christianity Today (Carol Stream, IL)

Tom Nelson Senior Pastor, Christ Community Evangelical Free Church (Leawood, KS)

Niel Nielson President, Covenant College (Lookout Mt., GA)

Most Rev. John Nienstedt Archbishop, Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, MN

Dr. Tom Oden Theologian, United Methodist Minister and Professor, Drew University (Madison, NJ)

Marvin Olasky Editor-in-Chief, World Magazine and provost, The Kings College (New York City, NY)

Most Rev. Thomas J. Olmsted Bishop, Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix, AZ

Rev. William Owens Chairman, Coalition of African-American Pastors (Memphis, TN)

Dr. J.I. Packer Board of Governors’ Professor of Theology, Regent College (Canada)

Metr. Jonah Paffhausen Primate, Orthodox Church in America (Syosset, NY)

Tony Perkins President, Family Research Council (Washington, D.C.)

Eric M. Pillmore CEO, Pillmore Consulting LLC (Doylestown, PA)

Dr. Everett Piper President, Oklahoma Wesleyan University (Bartlesville, OK)

Todd Pitner President, Rev Increase

Dr. Cornelius Plantinga President, Calvin Theological Seminary (Grand Rapids, MI)

Dr. David Platt Pastor, Church at Brook Hills (Birmingham AL)

Rev. Jim Pocock Pastor, Trinitarian Congregational Church (Wayland, MA)

Fred Potter Executive Director & CEO, Christian Legal Society (Springfield, VA)

Dennis Rainey President, CEO, & Co-Founder, FamilyLife (Little Rock, AR)

Fr. Patrick Reardon Pastor, All Saints’ Antiochian Orthodox Church (Chicago, IL)

Bob Reccord Founder, Total Life Impact, Inc. (Suwanee, GA)

His Eminence Justin Cardinal Rigali Archbishop, Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia, PA

Frank Schubert President, Schubert Flint Public Affairs (Sacramento, CA)

David Schuringa President, Crossroads Bible Institute (Grand Rapids, MI)

Tricia Scribner Author (Harrisburg, NC)

Dr. Dave Seaford Senior Pastor, Community Fellowship Church (Matthews, NC)

Alan Sears President, CEO, & General Counsel, Alliance Defense Fund (Scottsdale, AZ)

Randy Setzer Senior Pastor, Macedonia Baptist Church (Lincolnton, NC)

Most Rev. Michael J. Sheridan Bishop, Roman Catholic Diocese of Colorado Springs, CO

Dr. Ron Sider Director, Evangelicals for Social Action (Wynnewood, PA)

Fr. Robert Sirico Founder, Acton Institute (Grand Rapids, MI)

Dr. Robert Sloan President, Houston Baptist University (Houston, TX)

Charles Stetson Chairman of the Board, Bible Literacy Project (New York, NY)

Dr. David Stevens CEO, Christian Medical & Dental Association (Bristol, TN)

John Stonestreet Executive Director, Summit Ministries (Manitou Springs, CO)

Dr. Joseph Stowell President, Cornerstone University (Grand Rapids, MI)

Dr. Sarah Sumner Professor of Theology and Ministry, Azusa Pacific University (Azusa, CA)

Dr. Glenn Sunshine Chairman of the history department of Central Connecticut State University (New Britain, CT)

Luiz Tellez President, The Witherspoon Institute (Princeton, NJ)

Dr. Timothy C. Tennent Professor, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (South Hamilton, MA)

Michael Timmis Chairman, Prison Fellowship and Prison Fellowship International (Naples, FL)

Mark Tooley President, Institute for Religion and Democracy (Washington, D.C.)

H. James Towey President, St. Vincent College (Latrobe, PA)

Juan Valdes Middle and High School Chaplain, Flordia Christian School (Miami, FL)

Todd Wagner Pastor, WaterMark Community Church (Dallas, TX)

Dr. Graham Walker President, Patrick Henry Univ. (Purcellville, VA)

Alexander F. C. Webster Archpriest, Orthodox Church in America and Associate Professorial Lecturer, The George Washington University (Ft. Belvoir, VA)

George Weigel Distinguished Senior Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center (Washington, D.C.)

David Welch Houston Area Pastor Council Executive Director, US Pastors Council (Houston, TX)

Dr. James White Founding and Senior Pastor, Mecklenberg Community Church (Charlotte, NC)

Dr. Hayes Wicker Senior Pastor, First Baptist Church (Naples, FL)

Mark Williamson Founder and President, Foundation Restoration Ministries/Federal Intercessors (Katy, TX)

Dr. Craig Williford President, Trinity International University (Deerfield, IL)

Dr. John Woodbridge Research professor of Church History & the History of Christian Thought, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (Deerfield, IL)

Don M. Woodside Performance Matters Associates (Matthews, NC)

Dr. Frank Wright President, National Religious Broadcasters (Manassas, VA)

Most Rev. Donald W. Wuerl Archbishop, Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Washington, D.C.

Paul Young COO & Executive VP, Christian Research Institute (Charlotte, NC)

Dr. Michael Youssef President, Leading the Way (Atlanta, GA)

Ravi Zacharias Founder and Chairman of the board, Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (Norcross, GA)

Most Rev. David A. Zubik Bishop, Roman Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh, PA

Comments
Seversky, Sounds like you just laid out the "Bush Doctrine."jerry
December 5, 2009
December
12
Dec
5
05
2009
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT
Thank you, Seversky, for your eloquent and well-reasoned arguments. You always focus incisively on the heart of the matter.Adel DiBagno
December 5, 2009
December
12
Dec
5
05
2009
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT
StephenB @ 114
There are plenty of people who subscribe to a different philosophy. For them, they can live a happy life only if they can dominate you and me. They do not subscribe to our notion of reciprocity. Quite the contrary, they hold that “might is right,” which is why they seek power over all other things. Indeed, this group has more influence than any other group because they make it a life-long pursuit to gain that very power that they lust after.
Yes, there are such people. There always have been. They existed when the prevailing cultures were religious and they asserted themselves more recently through avowedly atheistic ideologies. Although it has not been a necessary precondition, a common theme amongst both groups has been justifying their actions as being carried out in pursuit of some supreme or ultimate Truth, whether it be Holy Mother Church or Allah or National Socialism or the Marxist State or even Manifest Destiny. You tend not to find such attitudes succeeding where the rights of the individual are established and upheld as being equal or superior to those of the state or any religious or political bloc.
Since you cannot tell them that they are violating the inherent dignity of the human person, or the natural moral law, or any other objective standard, you are out of options and headed for slavery.
On the contrary, we can argue that any form of authority that tries to impose itself without the consent of the population it seeks to govern is illegitimate. Need I remind you that in 1776 the American colonists fought a war based on that very principle; they then went on to enshrine that principle in a constitution which is notable for its establishment of the principle of individual rights and democratic government which stand in their own right. They need no justification by or permission from some other supreme authority.
You cannot build a well ordered society around your wishes or even the sum total of all of societies wishes. You can only build a well ordered society around moral truths that put conditions on everyone’s wishes, including those whose wish is to deny your wishes.
That depends on how well-ordered you want a well-ordered society to be. The rigidly-disciplined societies of seventeenth-century Puritans or twentieth century communist regimes were well-ordered on the surface, but I would argue that it was a facade. It was only achieved by suppressing basic human nature. It is significant that, in England, the Puritans were popular initially because they broke the power of the monarch and the aristocracy in the English Civil War. They became less than popular and eventually fell out of favor when it became apparent that the oppression of the King was being replaced by the oppression of a particularly narrow, rigid and doctrinaire version of Christian belief. Human nature is human nature and will not be repressed for long. Societies which recognize and allow for that may appear to be messy and disorganized but is that really worse than the alternative?
Seversky
December 5, 2009
December
12
Dec
5
05
2009
04:55 AM
4
04
55
AM
PDT
----seversky: "Rather than what is right being decreed by some sort of supreme moral authority, it is an argument which runs: if you want a better chance of a long and happy life then you should respect the same wish in others." There are plenty of people who subscribe to a different philosophy. For them, they can live a happy life only if they can dominate you and me. They do not subscribe to our notion of reciprocity. Quite the contrary, they hold that "might is right," which is why they seek power over all other things. Indeed, this group has more influence than any other group because they make it a life-long pursuit to gain that very power that they lust after. You say, "let's all just get along." They say, "let's not. I would prefer that you be my slave. You say, "I prefer to scratch your back while you scratch my back." They say, "I prefer to keep you in chains.' Since you cannot tell them that they are violating the inherent dignity of the human person, or the natural moral law, or any other objective standard, you are out of options and headed for slavery. You cannot build a well ordered society around your wishes or even the sum total of all of societies wishes. You can only build a well ordered society around moral truths that put conditions on everyone's wishes, including those whose wish is to deny your wishes.StephenB
December 3, 2009
December
12
Dec
3
03
2009
07:41 PM
7
07
41
PM
PDT
Clive Hayden @ 112
But of course all of this presupposes that things like obligations should be respected, that is, that respect and mutual agreement should be protected and respected because they are already the right thing to do.
I see it as a conditional rather than an imperative morality. Rather than what is right being decreed by some sort of supreme moral authority, it is an argument which runs: if you want a better chance of a long and happy life then you should respect the same wish in others. Our moral beliefs may not be far apart. Where we differ is over the authority or justification for those beliefs. I see no reason to assume the existence of a god or that moral codes can have any objective existence in any meaningful sense. The moral codes that undoubtedly do exist have arisen as conventions in human cultures. This does not make them any less valid just as being enshrined in scripture doesn't make them any more valid.
Seversky
December 3, 2009
December
12
Dec
3
03
2009
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PDT
Seversky,
I prefer to call it pragmatic. If I want other people in society to respect my interests then I must, in turn, respect theirs. It is a simple exercise of the Golden Rule or “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours”. The obverse of that principle, of course, is acting selfishly without any consideration for others. However, if someone behaved like that towards me then I would regard myself as being released from any obligation to respect that persons interests. The problem with that is how long do you think any society would last if all of its members behaved like that?
But of course all of this presupposes that things like obligations should be respected, that is, that respect and mutual agreement should be protected and respected because they are already the right thing to do. This means that your system presupposes morality. And secondly, by your system, there is no reason to respect pragmatism. Chaos works just as well for any end as any other, for no end would be objectively better than any other, including pragmatism and survival. There is no "goodness" even in survival, there is only desire, but of course desire means things that are morally wrong too. But if there are no differences between desires, then there is no reason to prefer one to any other other than another desire. When all that says "it is good" is gone, that which says "I want" remains. And morality will not and cannot be built on those grounds. All of your messages to me presuppose a real morality, a real duty to others, whether you call it pragmatism or shared interests.Clive Hayden
December 1, 2009
December
12
Dec
1
01
2009
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PDT
Clive Hayden @ 107
Why should anyone care about another persons common interest or even their own? This has to be maintained only and solely on the grounds that it is “right” to consider another person’s interest, so you’re using objective morality in the first degree to justify all other moral actions to that principle of shared interests.
I prefer to call it pragmatic. If I want other people in society to respect my interests then I must, in turn, respect theirs. It is a simple exercise of the Golden Rule or "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours". The obverse of that principle, of course, is acting selfishly without any consideration for others. However, if someone behaved like that towards me then I would regard myself as being released from any obligation to respect that persons interests. The problem with that is how long do you think any society would last if all of its members behaved like that?
And secondly, things are of mutual interest only because they are right, not because they are of interest. They are of “interest” because we are interested in what is right, and to argue the other way around is to beg the question.
I think you are misunderstanding what I mean by interest because it has nothing to do with 'right'. My most fundamental interest is to live as long as I can or, at least, for as long as I retain some capacity to enjoy life. Whether or not this is "right" or even rational is irrelevant to me. It is what I want and I make no apologies for it. Like everyone else here, I will die sooner or later of something. There appears to be no way to avoid that. All I can do is to minimize those risks over which I have some influence. One of those risks is from other people: people who might view me as a threat, people who might compete with me for scarce resources, people who might just take a dislike to me. If I can ameliorate that threat to my survival by joining a society in which all members agree not to harm others in order to prevent harm being done to themselves then, to me, it makes good sense to do so. In that way, simple self-interest could lead to the complex moralities we see today. As I said, collective not objective.
First things first, Seversky, first things first. Morality is the first principle in which all interests are built upon. Morality is always the premise, never the conclusion.
The naturalistic fallacy lies in arguing that we can derive any moral lessons from observing the way the Universe is. I am a miniscule part of that Universe and I want to survive for as long as I can. There is nothing in the way the Universe is to say that I should or should not survive. It is supremely indifferent to the question as far as we can see. In that case, why shouldn't my desire to survive be its own justification or, rather, does it need any justification at all? Bringing a deity like the Christian God into it is no use either. It would be just another intelligent agent expressing an opinion. What reason do we have for thinking that a god's morality is any better-founded than our own?
Seversky
December 1, 2009
December
12
Dec
1
01
2009
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT
Walter Kloover: Thanks for giving me second chance to compensate for my leap to judgment.StephenB
November 30, 2009
November
11
Nov
30
30
2009
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT
Thanks for your responses, StephenB.Walter Kloover
November 30, 2009
November
11
Nov
30
30
2009
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT
----Walter: "I’m not certain what you mean by using reverse engineering as a diagnostic tool. Are you referring strictly to making medical diagnoses?' No, I was just providing a practical example of a professional person who claimed that it helped him. ---"As a general matter, I think it is feasible to use reverse engineering even if the object to be reverse engineered has arisen without intelligent input." I think if something was designed, it would reveal more about the way it was constructed than if it wasn't designed, even assuming that some well functioning thing has ever been constructed without a design, which has never been shown to happen. ---"At least that’s what I take from the description of reverse engineering copied in (from the dreaded Wikipedia) below." Wikipedia has designophobia.StephenB
November 29, 2009
November
11
Nov
29
29
2009
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT
Seversky,
As I see it, we all experience the world subjectively. Everything we know or feel about what we assume to be beyond us takes place in our conscious awareness.
Both of these statements are objective statements about how we see the world.
On the second question of purpose, you have asked on what grounds atheists or agnostics like myself can choose one morality over another. I have argued for a common interests justification.
Why should anyone care about another persons common interest or even their own? This has to be maintained only and solely on the grounds that it is "right" to consider another person's interest, so you're using objective morality in the first degree to justify all other moral actions to that principle of shared interests. And secondly, things are of mutual interest only because they are right, not because they are of interest. They are of "interest" because we are interested in what is right, and to argue the other way around is to beg the question. If killing all other people's babies for fun were in everyone's interest, then by your system of shared interests determining morality, torturing babies to death for fun would be perfectly fine. But it's not in our interest, because it is wrong. First things first, Seversky, first things first. Morality is the first principle in which all interests are built upon. Morality is always the premise, never the conclusion. If you don't see it from the outset, the inherent goodness of it, no argument can bring you to it. This is true and has been true for all civilizations across the globe since man has been man. If you want to imagine a country in which people are rewarded for killing all the people who were kindest to that person, and where torturing other folk's babies to death for fun is admired by everyone, you might as well imagine a country where two and two makes five. We can correct these objectively wrong behaviours only because we know what is right, and right cannot be as arbitrary as what we're trying to correct, or else there can be no correction. If you correct a child's sums, it is only because you know that there is a correct answer. If there weren't, you could do not correcting. This is obvious.Clive Hayden
November 29, 2009
November
11
Nov
29
29
2009
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PDT
StephenB-
. . . I think it is very useful to show scientifically that certain elements in nature have been designed. That would open up the possibility of reverse engineering as a diagnostic tool, something that is not feasible if Darwinism is true.
I'm not certain what you mean by using reverse engineering as a diagnostic tool. Are you referring strictly to making medical diagnoses? As a general matter, I think it is feasible to use reverse engineering even if the object to be reverse engineered has arisen without intelligent input. At least that's what I take from the description of reverse engineering copied in (from the dreaded Wikipedia) below. It doesn't seem to rely on the object having been intelligently engineered in the first place.
Reverse engineering (RE) is the process of discovering the technological principles of a device, object or system through analysis of its structure, function and operation. It often involves taking something (e.g., a mechanical device, electronic component, or software program) apart and analyzing its workings in detail to be used in maintenance, or to try to make a new device or program that does the same thing without copying anything from the original.
Walter Kloover
November 29, 2009
November
11
Nov
29
29
2009
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT
Clive Hayden @ 83
Seversky,
My answer, as before, is that all human beings have a number of interests in common.
And one interest is recognizing objective morality, such as it is always wrong to torture other people’s infants to death for fun.
We would all like these issues to be settled and certain. It would be so much easier if someone else had decided them for us, much like our parents set rules for how we should behave when we were children. We may have found them restrictive on occasions but, overall, it was comforting to have them there in the sure and certain knowledge that they were given with our best interests at heart. Unfortunately, as we grow up, we learn that things are not so simple or as clear-cut. We have to struggle with all those gray areas of uncertainty : 1 Cor 13:11
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
This is not to say morality is childish, you understand, only that, as adults, we become aware of questions which, as children, we did not, and probably could not, consider.
This is objective, whether it serves interests or not is, quite frankly, beside the point.
There are two questions here, one of objectivity and one of purpose. As I see it, we all experience the world subjectively. Everything we know or feel about what we assume to be beyond us takes place in our conscious awareness. I envisage that consciousness as a 'model', constructed inside our brains on the basis of sensory input, 'Subjective' is what exists only in our mental model or mind. 'Objective' is what also exists outside us whether we are thinking about it or not. For example, I have a car. Sitting here, I can call up a detailed image of that car in my mind. That image is a subjective experience. But I can also go to my window and look at the car in its parking bay. I can go out and touch it and drive it around if I choose. I assume, although it is hard to prove, that the car is an object in an external reality. If I try, I can also imagine a futuristic spaceship in considerable detail. In my mind the image can seem almost as real as that of my car. But the spaceship, as far as I know, does not exist outside of my imagination. I can also call up in my mind an image of the Star Trek ship USS Enterprise. This a widely-known image which was the joint creation of the teams which produced the TV shows and movies. This image is probably shared by billions of minds. Representations of the image can be found in the aforementioned TV shows and movies, as well as books and magazines. However, while the representations are real, the ship is not. In spite of all those billions of minds thinking about it, there is no USS Enterprise traveling around the galaxy at warp speed, not yet at least. It still exists only in the imagination and is thus subjective. On the second question of purpose, you have asked on what grounds atheists or agnostics like myself can choose one morality over another. I have argued for a common interests justification. I also throw the question straight back at you. What are your grounds for claiming that your morality is superior? Remember that we are both asking for reasons to support our claims. If your morality is derived from Biblical prescriptions, I would remind you that, for example, the Ten Commandments are just that, Commandments not arguments. We are given a list of rules to follow but there is no rationale given for any of them. Aren't you in the least bit curious as to why God chose those particular rules? We are told not to swear or covet our neighbor's ass but there are no specific prohibitions of what might be considered much worse offenses like rape or child abuse or slavery or even the one which seems to exercise so many Christians, homosexuality.
No matter what you use as your basis, interests, life, cooperation, etc., all imply and rely on the moral premise that they “should” be followed, but you can find no reason in the last resort except that it is “right” to do so. Morality is always the premise, not the conclusion.
That's right, and it is as true for your morality as it is for mine. As I have said, I argue a common interests justification for morality but I recognize that it is only a post-hoc rationale. There is no reason why I or the human race should survive or expect any privileges in this Universe. On the other hand, if there is no God then why shouldn't we assert our own claims and decide our own morality and purpose? All Christianity, or any other faith, can offer as an alternative is a morality which is as unfounded as any other, decreed by a Creator who, as far as we can tell, is no more objectively real than the Starship Enterprise.
Seversky
November 29, 2009
November
11
Nov
29
29
2009
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT
---Walter Kloover: "If we both agree, doesn’t that mean that that question is “no longer an issue”? But you complain that I go on to ask another question?" Perhaps, I didn't give you a fair shake. If so, I apologize. ---"Consider the context of the thread Should I have asked the same question over again?" Considering that fact that dozens on this site continue to peddle the lie that ID=religion, I didn't want to casually leave that theme for another one. On the matter of my response to you, maybe I pushed too hard on that one and made a design inference about game playing that wasn't there. ---"My next question was, how is the explanatory filter a useful scientific methodology? Do you have any thoughts on that one?" Sure, I have a great many ideas on that subject. For one thing, I think it is very useful to show scientifically that certain elements in nature have been designed. That would open up the possibility of reverse engineering as a diagnostic tool, something that is not feasible if Darwinism is true. I know of some brain surgeons who insist that their belief in the brain's design has improved their practice for the very reason indicated---reverse engineering.StephenB
November 28, 2009
November
11
Nov
28
28
2009
09:13 PM
9
09
13
PM
PDT
StephenB-
In keeping with that point, Walter’s proclivity to ignore my straight [answer] to his straight question and continue on with another one as if the first one was no longer an issue, resembles the behavior of the customer who didn’t really come hear the music.
I guess the applicability of the metaphor was lost on me, StephenB. I understood and agreed with your straight answer to my straight question. As you said, the explanatory filter is not tied to any particular worldview. If we both agree, doesn't that mean that that question is "no longer an issue"? But you complain that I go on to ask another question? Should I have asked the same question over again? I thought Joseph had the copyright on that schtick. My next question was, how is the explanatory filter a useful scientific methodology? Do you have any thoughts on that one? My impression is that the scientific community at large has not found that methodology useful. Do you disagree? Indeed, the ID community does not seem to have run with that methodology. Do you disagree? Maybe you are the wrong person to ask, your expertise seems to be more in philosophy than biology.Walter Kloover
November 28, 2009
November
11
Nov
28
28
2009
08:52 PM
8
08
52
PM
PDT
Heb 9:16-17 Now where there is a will, the death of the testator must be established. For a will takes effect only at death; it has no force while the testator is alive. ---- No doubt. But you seem to assert that Christ was not telling us about the contents of this will while He was alive. What He told us during His life was what the terms of the Covenant were going to be. Again, I ask you directly: Is the parable of the Sheep and the Goats a throw-away, superseded and ignorable? If so, I ask you to consider very carefully where this doctrine came from, and whether it is in accord with the first 15 centuries of Christian understanding. Also, what do you make of this from Paul (Col 1:24): Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ... How can there be something lacking, if there is nothing we can possibly add? Remember, this is Paul talking (who, it seems, supersedes Christ for some). You need to find an understanding that gives due weight to this, as well as Rom 3:28. I find that these things all harmonize nicely under the Catholic understanding.Matteo
November 28, 2009
November
11
Nov
28
28
2009
08:41 PM
8
08
41
PM
PDT
--halo: "I am just denying that we must look to ourselves for any of our righteousness/justification/requirements for heaven, which is why in the passages I have listed, faith/belief is presented in such singular terms, and why works are oftentimes denounced with regard to salvation." Right you are. We cannot look to ourselves. Insofar as we do any good works, it is Christ working throught us. Without him, we can do nothing. On the other hand, if we forbid Christ to work through us, long term, our salvation is in danger. Like any other relationship, it must be maintained. Context is all important. When John says that he who believes will be saved, he is speaking in contrast to those who don't believe. In effect, he is saying, if you don't believe [provided you have the opportunity and the exposure] you are not saved; if you do believe, you are. He is not saying that works are not necessary because he is simply not addressing that issue. Think of it this way: He who eats will live; he who does not eat will die. Does if follow, then, that food alone will save us and we no longer have any need for air.StephenB
November 28, 2009
November
11
Nov
28
28
2009
08:34 PM
8
08
34
PM
PDT
---riddick: "A great “skit” for sure, and light years ahead of anything currently on late night–with the exception of Paul Shaffer’s (sp?) impressive talents on the Letterman show." You bet. The boys in that old band had it all.StephenB
November 28, 2009
November
11
Nov
28
28
2009
08:11 PM
8
08
11
PM
PDT
Matteo, since you disagree with the writer of Hebrews (specifically 9:16-17), please answer one question for me. If the New Covenant indeed became effective before the death of Christ, would you please cite at least one Scripture to support this position?riddick
November 28, 2009
November
11
Nov
28
28
2009
08:10 PM
8
08
10
PM
PDT
tsmith, A couple of examples. Yesterday, in Taoyuan, I was driving down the road and saw a family of 6 walking. I thought to myself, maybe they might need some directions or something. I passed by and something said to turn back and do just that. So I went outta my way to make a U-turn and approached them to offer help. Turns out they wanted to head to the nearest bus stop to head to Taipei. My office was nearby so I parked there to do some overtime, then I went downstairs just to check that they had made it alright. In fact they passed it up because the sign was not easy to find, being crowded out with election signs. So I went after them and hailed them back. I got to know them a bit and when the bus came, I didn't have the exact change. So I automatically offered 12 bucks no questions asked to help them out. But when the bus came, it was full and they couldn't get on so they then had time to go to the convenient store to get change and they handed back my money. (my reflexive response to offer them bus fare didn't go unnoticed by the father or myself. When was the last time I was so generous without thought? 12 bucks is still twelve bucks. I don't even thought these people. ) Another interesting thing thing is that the father was a docter and he was taking his youngest daughter to have an operation to alleviate the effects of scoleosis on her spine. I immediately thought to myself that this is how Christ works; setting me up to intersect with this family; to help lessen their worries, their emotional pain and to let them know that He is in their midst. By following the silent whispers that prod you to against your world judgement (ah they dont need help, they'll be just fine, or thats too much work for me to go outta my way or maybe they're shiesters or something), I also received something. I was able to do something other appreciated immensely, and I had the comfort of knowing that my time was not wasted. Rather is was more fulfilling than anything I could imagine. This is what Christ means by works. And I don't want to toot my own horn (God knows how many opps I passed up due to those 'worldly excuses;) but imagine how different a place the world would be if each and every one of us was not afraid to lend a simple hand to his fellow man, to stop building emotional, financial, and physical walls to separate each other. It is these teachings of Christ that are the catalyst by which Man can begin to repair the damage caused by our fall from grace. For these works do need grace, that power and feeling that comes over you, suspends your objections, suspicions, and concerns, and allows you to do exhibit what the Chinese call "Moi Chi", which means literally to "touch Chi". It can be translated as thinking another's thoughts, or having like mind. For me, I also interpret it to mean one soul touching another soul. How often we do works depends on how close we wish to come to Christ. It is as simple as that.
in regards to works being necessary for salvation…I would ask those who advocate that position, what works do you need to do? how many times do you need to do them?
Oramus
November 28, 2009
November
11
Nov
28
28
2009
08:02 PM
8
08
02
PM
PDT
That is why comments like Matteo@76 frighten me. It seems to take away from casting ourselves solely on Christ and trusting that his work was sufficient to save us from our sins.
It should frighten you. Did Jesus in Mt 25 say anything whatsoever about the final judgment involving "casting ourselves solely on Christ and trusting that his work was sufficient to save us from our sins?" Do you agree with Riddick (77) that the teachings of Jesus while He walked the earth were under the Old Covenant, not the New? Do you not see what a very, very strange doctrine that would have to be, i.e. that Jesus came to teach us at length under the Old Covenant, but then whole thing was immediately superseded? Where did this doctrine come from? When was it first explicated? Why was such an on-the-face-of-it outlandish thing not believed for the first 1.5 millenia of Christianity? Do you really choose to ignore the crystal-clear words of Christ (in the parable of the sheep and the goats) in favor of some sort of soteriological theory? Are you asserting that it's all in Paul (interpreted your way) but none of it is in the Gospels themselves? On precisely what basis?Matteo
November 28, 2009
November
11
Nov
28
28
2009
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PDT
Slightly sort-of off topic: StephenB, are you old enough to remember the Johnny Carson show? One of my favorite bits was when Ed and Doc would front the band and the audience would try to stump them. I'm not sure if the piano player was the same guy all of those years, but I recall that that person had an incredible ear. A great "skit" for sure, and light years ahead of anything currently on late night--with the exception of Paul Shaffer's (sp?) impressive talents on the Letterman show.riddick
November 28, 2009
November
11
Nov
28
28
2009
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT
"If he can’t play a single tune, is he really a piano player?" Does anyone else ever question the 1) reading comprehension skills or 2) the logic prowess of materialists? wowUpright BiPed
November 28, 2009
November
11
Nov
28
28
2009
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT
OK, I can already hear the wails. Call it an analogy.StephenB
November 28, 2009
November
11
Nov
28
28
2009
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT
---scrofulous: "If he can’t play a single tune, is he really a piano player." Never present a Darwinist with a metaphor. The story had nothing to do with my ability to answer the question, or ID's potential to do meaningful research. The relationship is as follows: The customer made a request from the piano player, but when he found out that the piano player could, indeed, play what he asked for, he was no longer interested in hearing that tune--he wanted to hurry on to another request in hopes of discrediting the piano player. In keeping with that point, Walter's proclivity to ignore my straight to his straight question and continue on with another one as if the first one was no longer an issue, resembles the behavior of the customer who didn't really come hear the music. See how that works.StephenB
November 28, 2009
November
11
Nov
28
28
2009
07:11 PM
7
07
11
PM
PDT
StephenB, If he can't play a single tune, is he really a piano player?scrofulous
November 28, 2009
November
11
Nov
28
28
2009
06:31 PM
6
06
31
PM
PDT
Walter Kloover @87: I once knew a piano player who taking requests from patrons. One lister asked him if he knew the piece, "Misty," to which he responded, "Sure, would you like to hear it." Hearing that the listener asked, "well in that case, do you know "Somewhere in time." Again, the pianist offered to oblige him, but the questions kept coming until finally it became clear that he didn't really want to hear any music. He just wanted to play, "let's stump the piano player."StephenB
November 28, 2009
November
11
Nov
28
28
2009
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT
fbeckwith@82 thanks for the link to that article, I probably do not understand the Catholic position very well so I would like to read it. Thankfully it is not hopelessly long!halo
November 28, 2009
November
11
Nov
28
28
2009
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT
stephenB @72 thanks for your response, I hope you don't mind me chirping in one more time. It seems to me that those verses I have listed present faith as sufficient, not just necessary. I am not denying the place of works - I just see them as having a very different place than you do. Even Paul said (in reference to some sins) 'those who do such things will not enter the kingdom of heaven'. So obviously he was not denying any place at all for works. I am just denying that we must look to ourselves for any of our righteousness/justification/requirements for heaven, which is why in the passages I have listed, faith/belief is presented in such singular terms, and why works are oftentimes denounced with regard to salvation. I don't see that the Catholic doctrine adequately accounts for this. The two must both have a place, and to me it seems that the best way these passages fit together is that works are the outworking of genuine faith, such that a faith that is without works is no faith at all - James' point. 'Salvation is by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone.' That reformation saying makes a lot of sense of the scriptures we have talked about. The danger to me seems to be that once you allow that certain works are required of us it seems to inevitably leads to a mentality whereby we must strive to be accepted by God, can you be sure that you have fulfilled the requirements? And it seems to leave us with an air of self-righteousness - it will always be that we can thank ourselves for doing something that helped us get saved. That is why comments like Matteo@76 frighten me. It seems to take away from casting ourselves solely on Christ and trusting that his work was sufficient to save us from our sins. And from that place of faith and acceptance where there is no pressure to perform we are liberated to go forth and do good works in faith and love. It is true that Martin Luther called James 'the epistle of straw' but I don't think he permanently cast if off. He just struggled to see how Paul and James fitted together and in a trying moment made that comment. Aside from this issue, I also struggle to see the scriptural basis for having a pope and for purgatory. Not to mention papal infallibility, given history and indulgences etc. I could easily say the same about many protestants who believe some things I think are very contrary to scripture so don't take it personally. Anyway, I appreciate your courtesy, thanks for the discussion. halohalo
November 28, 2009
November
11
Nov
28
28
2009
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT
What are the current or imaginable scientific uses for the explanatory filter methodology?
Well, we can recognise that your questions follow a pattern, one that we have seen before. From that, we can draw an inference.Mung
November 28, 2009
November
11
Nov
28
28
2009
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply