From the aforementioned long Facebook thread, one commenter actually decided to engage with our Abolitionist FAQ. Finally! Such an event is rare enough that I am willing to create a whole post around it, to celebrate, nay, fête, the person who had enough gumption to take it on. Of course, there are hundreds of arguments on there and James P has interacted with approximately two of them, but that's two more than virtually everyone else has.
I reproduce here the entire comment:
James P
Okay, since you are refusing to acknowledge my previous arguments, I will create a new one based on some of the pure bigotry I have found in the FAQ.
Regarding "Don't you trust women to make the right decision for themselves on their own?" you state that "1) Many women do make the right decision, and we thank God for that.
Many make the wrong one, too, and we pray we can prevent that in the future." Which is a broad generalisation taken from the bias of a religious viewpoint. There is also no right or wrong decision to be made on this subject, as this is the argument you are trying to put forward. You cannot use the argument as an argument in itself.
You also then go onto state that "no, we don't trust any sinful human being to make the right decision without guidance and authoritative, true laws to let us know what is right and wrong." which is implying that without God, there is no absolute morality because humans are full of sin, despite the fact that the God you are trusting to enforce said morality is that of one which will quite happily enforce stoning for missing the Sabbath, encourages people to kill their kin in the name of the Lord, mass genocide of non believers, etcetera. I would much prefer a logical, thought out, secular morality - not one which follows the guidance of an ancient book. Also, to make the presumption that humans are sinful by default is ludicrous, and is once again from a religious bias.
This is the argument I am putting forward.
Now, given that James P has gone on to express incredulity at Oliver's ban and his lack of recognition at the fallacious nature of Oliver's argument, I have my doubts as to James' ability or willingness to engage any rebuttal in a substantive way, but hope springs eternal.
Which is a broad generalisation taken from the bias of a religious viewpoint
A broad generalisation, to deal with women who abort while attempting to address the subject of women who abort? Hmm, not really. It's more like dealing with the relevant subject matter.
As for the bias of a religious viewpoint, everyone has bias. Whether the bias overcomes rational justification for one's position and whether one can actually substantiate one's position - those are the relevant questions. James P needs to show that I've done so.
There is also no right or wrong decision to be made on this subject
1) James needs to argue for this claim, not merely assert it.
2) Would he say the same thing about the very next sentences in the linked article?
Why have laws against rape? Don't you trust men to make the right decision for themselves on their own?
Why have laws against new mothers drowning their 1-month old children? Don't you trust women to make the right decision for themselves on their own?
3) If there is no right or wrong, what stops me or anyone from saying the same about anything, including rape/murder/enslavement? Is James willing to be consistent with his stated position?
4) If my position isn't wrong, why is James arguing against it?
You cannot use the argument as an argument in itself.
I don't know what this is supposed to mean. Perhaps James can clarify.
which is implying that without God, there is no absolute morality...
Correct so far.
...because humans are full of sin
James goes wrong here. That's not why there is no absolute morality. If there is no God, there is no sin, and there is no objective moral value. That means there are no duties, no values, and no significance.
We have already outlined why we say that there is no absolute morality if God does not exist.
I even said as much in the next paragraph of the original article, but James clearly didn't read very carefully:
Abortion is wrong; we should tell people it is wrong. Similarly, rape is wrong; we should tell people it is wrong.
This is why the argument must be theological. If we are adrift in this life and world without any communication from our Creator, we have nothing to go on. We make it up as we go. We have no guidance, no light.
despite the fact that the God you are trusting to enforce said morality is that of one which will quite happily enforce stoning for missing the Sabbath, encourages people to kill their kin in the name of the Lord, mass genocide of non believers, etcetera
James is unfortunately way behind here. So few skeptics care enough to familiarise themselves with the standard argumentation!
1) James needs to tell us by what moral standard he judges God in the wrong for these things.
2) Is James an atheist? Do humans possess some sort of special value? How does he know, and in what does that value consist? Is scattering protoplasm and rearranging it some kind of moral problem?
Modern aborticians and pro-abort enablers like James like to take human begins of a certain class and dehumanise them for their arbitrary reasons. What's wrong with Ancient Near East Hebrews doing the same with certain of their kin or pagan, child-sacrificing Canaanites?
3) James would do well to do some basic reading before he responds.
I would much prefer a logical, thought out, secular morality
I'm sure he would, but there are a couple of problems.
1) Atheist ethics are impossible, as noted above.
2) Secular morality always unjustifiably bridges the is/ought gap. James needs to read up a little on that too and let us know on what basis he knows how to derive an ought from an is.
3) The question is not what morality James prefers, but which one is correct and true. It's a sign of his shallow thinking that he phrased it in this way.
not one which follows the guidance of an ancient book
Interestingly, the Bible predicts that people throughout the extent of human history will rebel against God and act like they are better governors of their own lives and destinies. James is merely fulfilling the path that many others have laid out before him.
James, I urge you not to be like the others who have failed before you. Repent of your sin. Trust the Savior. Your life is meaningless and absurd, but a life devoted to Jesus carries eternal worth because of Jesus' generosity and love.
to make the presumption that humans are sinful by default is ludicrous
Why? How much knowledge about the universe does James have? Less than 1%, I'm sure we'd all agree.
How does he know that there isn't, in the other 99+% of the total knowledge that exists in the universe, plenty of reason to think that humans are sinful by default? Even on atheistic presuppositions, there is no way to substantiate such a statement. Again, it demonstrates his shallow interaction with the topic.
So, out of the couple hundred arguments on the FAQ, James has tried to deal with two and failed. May the Lord Jesus be glorified in smashing all foolish arguments of rebels against the anvil of truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment