Intervention-2

Continuing from last time with the same interlocutor:

More response to come, but since this is essential, I'd like to remind you of the actual content of my 1-10 question.

--what would you say is the Bible's general evaluation of knowledgeable apostates, who attempt to turn people's hearts away from Jesus?  Maybe rate it on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is your basic hellspawn and 10 is straight from the lips of God Himself.  

Not what was Pulliam's position vis-a-vis Christianity.  What is the Bible's position vis-a-vis people like Pulliam?  (And you, incidentally, just so we're clear.)

I'd like to know what you think the Bible says about men like Pulliam (and yourself).
Does the Bible think that apostates who have a great deal of learning about Jesus and who turn away and put out a great deal of energy trying to turn others away from Jesus as well are really really good people? Or does it speak of them in slightly, um, more condemnatory terms?  1 = the Bible is very condemning of such people.  10 = they're going straight to Heaven barnone.

This is what you think the Bible says about you and Pulliam.

-----------------------------Later email-----------------------------

--"Your comment was a breach of decorum, a violation of custom."

Is this really persuasive to you?  It's amazing that someone could say this with a straight face.  

Turning away from orthodox Christian faith is itself a breach of decorum, as you and Pulliam have done.  So...what?  

A Yanomamo about to plunge his spear into a rival tribesman's heart would react the same way if a whitey like me shouted "Stop!" and got in his way. What possible meaning could this have?

--"Having been a missionary you must be familiar with this kind of issue."

Enough to realise when it's really an issue and when baiting a bunch of atheists to make idiots of themselves is quite worthwhile, yes.  Pulliam's blog is not exactly a missionary ground for open-hearted people, ready to hear the Gospel.  I go there to overthrow tables and challenge people, and thus appeal to the lurkers that the "we're the High Priests of Rationality" atheists are just empty poseurs.  Judging by the emptyheaded but fervently-emotional response, mission accomplished. 

That's not the only reason I posted what I posted, but it's one of the principal factors.

--"Out of ignorance you make a gaffe and offend the natives. "

Only someone UNfamiliar with actual mission work could make such a comparison.

--"Americans don't think it is appropriate to speak ill of the dead in the presence of their family and friends, especially during the grieving period. "

Some don't think it's EVER appropriate to talk about religion or politics.  You don't seem to mind offending THEM. 

Others don't think it's EVER OK to turn your back on the religion you once espoused.  Why be so hypocritical? 

The answer is that some customs are best broken, b/c they are stupid and/or wicked customs. 

--" I'll grant you that it appears to be a bit of a stretch to associate a blog with "in the presence of family and friends."  "

It's not a BIT of a stretch.  It's an unreasonable stretch.  If family mbrs were atheists, I'm aiming right at them - they need to repent and get their heads out of the sand.  If they are Christians, why are they reading his blog?  his blog itself is offensive to Christians!  And why read THAT PARTICULAR COMBOX?  

This is not even debatable, it's so silly, and yet it's the crux of that for which most people have been abusing me.

--"We're still building the cultural rules around behavior in the blogosphere and trying to figure out how it should relate to the rest of our lives.  "

You don't seem like you're "building rules" when you condemn me, or when you fail to call others out for abusing me.  Why be so hypocritical?

--" You are not the only one confused by this situation."

Do be kind enough to speak only for yourself.

--"Shortly afterwards somebody else created a Facebook page dedicated to taking messages for Ken's family"

On which page I made a conscious decision NOT to post. 

And on which page a fellow Christian blogger posted a pure condolence, and then was abused for it!  How do you not see this?

--"you apparently misjudged the social situation"

I did?  

Not at all - I knew exactly what was coming.  I baited the atheists, and I got exactly what I expected - a spot lesson in atheist and liberal hypocrisy.

--"This is where 1 Cor 9:19-27 comes in.  Paul "became all things" and so conformed to a lot of ridiculous restrictions on his freedom so that he wouldn't offend his audiences."

Yes, for issues like eating meat.  Not in issues like proclaiming the truth.  See, Paul also said Acts 17, and Galatians.  It's BOTH, and there's a time for each.

--"What in God's name did you mean by that first sentence?"

I meant that his arguments against Christianity were pitifully bad and weak, and the implication is that he wasted much of his life since he had great education in Christian theology and yet couldn't muster anything close to a powerful stroke against it.  

It is an expression of contempt for the way the man led his life, much like you'd have contempt for a 50 year old man throwing a tantrum b/c his mommy said he couldn't have a popsicle.  

--"Was it your greater purpose to let everyone know that you hated Ken so much you got pleasure out of humiliating him?  What kind of tactic is that? "Let us do evil that good may come?""

1) Hatred?  The only time "hate" has been expressed, it's opponents ascribing it to me.  You can't read my mind, and you don't know whether I hate Pulliam.  But you apparently feel freedom to impugn my character, don't you?  How is that not a violation of "social custom" and rank hypocrisy on your part?

2) You've just now elevated "violation of social custom" to "evil"?  How did that happen?  Where's your connecting argument? How do you even know what evil is?

3) Is there sthg evil about humiliating a man like Pulliam, who spent a great deal of his time trying to drag people to Hell with him?  Do you ever call out PZ Myers, Richard Dawkins, and Hitchens for humiliating Christians?  I doubt it!  Hypocrisy.

--" a whole flock of his friends from work and the neighborhood got up during the eulogy to thank my brother for things he had taught them."

I'm sorry to hear about your brother, but an anecdote about a bunch of people who obviously couldn't tell their left hands from their right does not constitute an argument.  What good did your brother do them?  On atheism, they'll all be dead in 50 years and all will be forgotten in another 100. So what? 

--"Had that happened and I had learned about it, I would have firmly escorted the individual out of the area with a warning not to return unless he wanted to deal with the police."

1) Hopefully you're not making a foolish analogy as if my posting on Pulliam's blog is similar to showing up at his funeral to shout and yell.

2) Apparently might makes right for you.  Your comment is very educational.

3) You apparently think that it's OK to call down judicial punishment on someone who violates social custom.  You're quite the judgmental man!

--"If you had heard somebody making comments like that about your child at the viewing or in the vestibule at church or at the gravesite or at some community event a week or a month or even a year later, wouldn't you want to do the same thing?"

1) Once again, a foolish analogy. Why not make a real analogy?  Is this really the best you can do?

2) Was my baby an apostate from the faith, with a PhD in theology?  Help me understand what you're thinking here.

3) Why are the same atheists who rip me for my comment the ones who make tawdry and disgusting jokes about my beloved wife? 

--"Your comment not only provoked understandable hostility, it completely undermined your testimony."

What's the argument?  

It might undermine the wrong ideas who think that Jesus was a pansy Who never offended anyone!  Maybe that's why you're where  you are - you can't bear to deal with the real Jesus.

--"I see a lot of discussion about your behavior.  I see hardly anything about Jesus. "

And the argument that this is my fault and not the fault of those who hate Jesus?

--"Not being the sharpest knife in the drawer, it can take awhile for me to recognize when I'm being conned. "

Conned by asking you to demonstrate that you have any idea what you're talking about, biblically speaking? You said you used to be an evangelical pastor, and that you've been in church longer than I have. 

If you were really a pastor and if you knew anything much about the Bible other than you can quote John 3:16 and think that Jesus wants us to be nice to everyone, you'd know that the Bible has nothing good to say about such apostates as you and Pulliam.  What it has to say is fearful.  

The entirety of Jude - http://nasb.scripturetext.com/jude/1.htm

The entirety of 2 Peter 2 - http://nasb.scripturetext.com/2_peter/2.htm

Luke 17:1-2 - http://nasb.scripturetext.com/luke/17.htm

Isaiah 45:9-10 - http://nasb.scripturetext.com/isaiah/45.htm

2 Tim 2:16-26 - http://nasb.scripturetext.com/jude/1.htm

Heb 6:4-8 - http://nasb.scripturetext.com/hebrews/6.htm

Heb 10:26-38 - http://nasb.scripturetext.com/hebrews/10.htm

And on and on it goes.  

The answer is that the Bible regards men such as Pulliam and you at a 1; your end will be fearful and horrific. I of course hope Pulliam repented before he died suddenly, but it's doubtful, sadly.  You still have time. Repent now and ask Jesus to forgive your great sin.  He will, but He won't if you continue in your foolish and hypocritical rebellion.  It'd be one thing if you had a good reason to buck against Him, but you don't even have that, as we've seen here.  Your predicament is sorry and sad, but all too common.

Peace,

Rhology

Intervention

A participant in the recent comment box lynch mob regarding my brief comment on the late Former Fundy's recent passing into eternity wrote me a personal note.

I'm writing to you because Patrick Chan pointed out to me that you have a personal email attached to your blogger account.  I posted some comments on the Triablogue blog that were partly in response to your
comment on the Nov 1 posting to Ken Pulliam's blog.  Patrick was absolutely correct that I should have checked your blogger account to see if you had an email address attached.  I have wanted to email Steve
and Peter Pike before but they don't post an address.  I assumed you all had the same practice.  I know, I know!

It's not worth it to keep hashing over the issue, but since I now know you have an email I figured I ought to send you something.  I used to be a pastor in my evangelical days.  I also have been an elder in evangelical reformed, PCA, and PCUSA churches of various sorts on and off for over 25 years.  Never, never, never in all that time have I seen or heard anybody, pastor, elder, or layperson, make comments about a deceased person as obnoxious as your comment about Ken Pulliam.  And yes, I've been to and officiated at funerals of some pretty notoriously wicked people.  And yes, the gospel was preached, all of it, including God's judgment, hell, and heaven.

How many other Christians do you know who say things like this to or in the presence of grieving family members?  How old are you?  Have any close family members die?  Ever been the executor for someone's estate? If you haven't I suppose you could be partly excused.  Most likely, somebody from Ken's immediate family is going to go through his blog, especially the more recent parts, possibly this week, possibly next
week, and they are going to hit your comment.  Want to guess what kind of an impression it's going to make?

I read your post on your own blog about Ken's death.  That post appeared to me to be thoughtful and appropriate, until you got to the part where you defended your comment.  If only you had restrained yourself to that post!

 Hello,

I have asked and asked and asked, I don't know how many times, in the relevant comboxes, those who are abusing me to explain what was so bad about my comment.  All have declined to explain themselves.  You seem levelheaded, which is a rare find, and so I'd like to ask you the same question.  Please paste the comment in its entirety so I can know which one you're talking about and then explain its "obnoxious" content.

Also, since you claim to have been a Christian for a longer stretch than I have so far been, what would you say is the Bible's general evaluation of knowledgeable apostates, who attempt to turn people's hearts away from Jesus?  Maybe rate it on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is your basic hellspawn and 10 is straight from the lips of God Himself. 

Your other questions:
-I don't know too many other Christians who would.  There are some I admire who would, yes.  Many of the others I know need to practice being a bit more offensive for the sake of the Gospel.
-A public blog is hardly "the presence of grieving family members".  What are these grieving family mbrs doing checking the comboxes of a blog whose content is known to be controversial and contentious, unless they're looking for a little something beyond condolences from ppl they care about?  Virtually all the commenters are unknown to them personally.
-These family mbrs are under the impression that Dr Pulliam is in heaven b/c of a profession of faith made decades ago, his later actions notwithstanding. Will they be as open to listening to the voice of reason later?  Maybe, maybe not.
-My age is irrelevant, and can be found with a little investigative work if someone has it in their head to set themselves up for commission of the genetic fallacy.
-My own child died.  Is that close enough a heartbreak for you, sir? 
-No, never executor of an estate.
-The impression I wanted to make I made.  I got all the atheists and mockers to show their true colors, using MUCH more abusive language of me than I *EVER* used of Pulliam, dead or alive.  I got them to show that their expressions of evolutionary ethics are just abstract to them, to be disposed of when convenient.  I also brought Pulliam's online life back into focus - the man spent ALL his online time, not a little of it, to tear down the Bible and its message and its Savior. 

Peace,
Rhology

So far, no reply, but I guess that fits the non-responses from everyone else.

Imposing your existential insecurity

enchantednaturalist.com said:

And please stop imposing your existential insecurity on atheists, who imbue their own lives with meaning and purpose (and acknowledge the human origin of morality) rather than relying upon an unwarranted belief in a dictatorial, sadistic (and masochistic), whimsical deity for these things. Please stop projecting.

Also, everyone, please stop imposing your existential insecurity on Christians, whose lives are imbued by God with meaning and purpose (and acknowledge the divine origin of morality) rather than relying upon an unwarranted belief in dictatorial, sadistic (and masochistic), whimsical genes and biological drives for these things. Please stop projecting.

Dr Ken Pulliam, the Former Fundy, has died

The death of Dr Ken Pulliam, the author of the Former Fundy blog, is most definitely an occasion for mixed emotions among those who love Jesus. 
On the one hand, the man had just submitted a chapter to an upcoming anti-Christian book edited by John Loftus.  He just finished a massive blogseries in which he attempted to dismantle the wonderful doctrine of the Substitutionary Atonement of Christ.  He was an apostate from the faith after earning a PhD in theology from Bob Jones University.  This last is what sets him apart from many - unlike a Dan Barker, whose education in Christianity is in reality minimal and easily seen to be shallow, a Bart Ehrman, whose post-grad education (Masters and PhD) is more along the lines of history and textual criticism, or a Richard Carrier whose PhD is in ancient history but who to my knowledge does not claim to have been a Christian, Pulliam's studies were in the very field that should lead one to know Jesus better - theology.  He was in a position to know a great deal about the Savior, and yet though he believed in Him, he decided a life lived apart from Jesus would be better than a life lived with Him.

Which brings us to the other hand.  Outside of a extraordinary change of heart that he had kept entirely secret, there can be virtually no doubt of his eternal location.  His heart attack struck him suddenly, at a relatively young age (50), and probably allowed him little time between its onset and his transition into eternity to reflect and repent.  He had just submitted an essay for a book called The End of Christianity.  The Lord will judge him by his works in this life and find that he wanted to be far from Him.  Thus Dr Pulliam will be granted exactly what he wanted in life - a life lived outside of the grace of Jesus. 

Obviously the man knew a great deal about Jesus and yet wanted nothing to do with Him.  He blogged a lot, attempting to turn people away from thinking that the Bible is true.  He was running headlong toward this end; shall we shake our fists at God for giving the man what he wanted?  And yet, we who know better and who love Jesus are sad to see another soul wallow in its self-deception to the bitter, bitter end.  Dr Pulliam was a wolf who attempted to destroy the flock of God; I will not shed too many tears when animal control puts a bullet in the wolf who has been tearing up my sheep.  Yet at the same time, I know the analogy of "wolf" does not entirely cover it.  And I hope that Christians who know his family will reach out to them and offer them the hope of the good news of the forgiveness of sin and eternal life in Jesus' name and will weep with them.

It is interesting to see how uptight people get when it comes to death.  Death truly is our great enemy and equalizer, yet how many are prepared for it?  A few examples of what I mean:
1) I left a brief comment on Dr Pulliam's latest blogpost (obviously he had several ready for scheduled publishing):

Goodbye Dr Pulliam. Your pitiful arguments against Christianity will be missed. I pity you greatly.

-Rhology 

 I have received several comments in response.  I wouldn't call them consistent with atheistic reasoning.  Pulliam wouldn't have lived more than a few more decades, and in 100 years, who will remember any of us? 

2) Dr James McGrath devotes half of a brief post to eulogise Dr Pulliam.  The other half he spends reaming me for my comment!  Apparently I have "decided to bring yet further shame on (my)self and (my) faith tradition by harassing someone who has recently died and has no opportunity to respond".  So, that little comment constitutes "harassment", eh? 
One can only wonder about what sort of motivations are present in Dr McGrath, that the announcement of the man's death quickly steers away from the man to discuss a third-rate blogger like me. Sometimes McGrath could stand to think things through a little more thoroughly, to be sure.
But I would like to ask: What precisely is disgusting about my comment? The implication that the man might be spending eternity separated from the God he claimed not to believe in?
I know the answer - McGrath is a servant of the same being as Dr Pulliam was and is, and death makes such men nervous.  Don't talk about man's eternal destiny after somebody died!  It's not polite! 


3) Ditto with the "The Church of Jesus Christ" blog, which calls me "disgusting".
Here is the comment I left (and which I do not expect them to publish):

Hello,
Thanks for your thoughts. It is apparent that you have not really understood who Dr Pulliam was. One wonders whether you read his blog very much. He and I have had extensive conversations within the past year, and he has just finished a series in which he did everything within his (limited) power to kick dust on the glorious and wonderful doctrine of the Substitutionary Atonement of Christ. He had a PhD in theology from a Christian university (yes, Bob Jones U is offbeat and has problems, but they’re still Christian) and yet turned away from the Christian faith and did his best over the course of many years to destroy it in the minds of others.
He was not your ally. He was not an unwitting pawn. He was a wolf. Biblically speaking, the only way he could have been worse for the Body of Christ would have been if he had stayed within its ranks to wreak havoc from the inside.
I guess I don’t understand what’s so disgusting here. Is it that I said I pity the man? He had just submitted a chapter in an upcoming antitheist book, and died suddenly. Where do *you* think he is? That’s why I pity him. You sort of make it sound like I am dancing with joy at his death. If that’s what you think, you are very wrong.
Peace and less prejudice to you,
Rhology

Finally, God has already spoken on this topic.  Here are some parts that will prove offensive to those who prefer to believe only part of what God has said and leave the rest to the side b/c it makes them uncomfortable. 
Psalm 7:6 Arise, O LORD, in Your anger; Lift up Yourself against the rage of my adversaries,
         And arouse Yourself for me; You have appointed judgment.
Psalm 3:7Arise, O LORD; save me, O my God! For You have smitten all my enemies on the cheek; You have shattered the teeth of the wicked.

Psalm 2: 1Why are the nations in an uproar  And the peoples devising a vain thing?
    2The kings of the earth take their stand   And the rulers take counsel together
         Against the LORD and against His Anointed, saying, 3"Let us tear their fetters apart  And cast away their cords from us!"
   4He who sits in the heavens laughs, The Lord scoffs at them.
    5Then He will speak to them in His anger  And terrify them in His fury...

John 3:36  He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.

Romans 2: 1Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. 2And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things. 3But do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God? 4Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? 5But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS: 7to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; 8but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. 9There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil...

When a PhD does you no good

I simply must direct you to the most recent round of conversation between myself and Dr Ken Pulliam. It's not as if he began at a high level of discourse regarding his moral basis; I mean, "intuiting" that things are "self-evidently wrong" is pretty weak. But today he's gone downhill, and fast, and the man has a PhD in theology! Generally highly-regarded Luke of Commonsense Atheism thinks his recent series is "Christian Theology's Worst Nightmare" (and also deleted my comment, which is quite lame).  Ordinarily "a Ph.D.-carrying theologian hard at work explaining – in great detail – why Christian theology no longer makes sense to him" might cause one to shake in one's boots a bit.  But the mystique wears off quickly when one actually talks to the man. 

Let's take a look at his most recent round of comments, from this morning:

Dr Pulliam:

Here is a quote from someone who believed that one needed a religion in order to have an objective moral code:

"This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious belief. The great masses of a nation are not composed of philosophers. For the masses of the people, especially faith is absolutely the only basis of a moral outlook on life . The various substitutes that have been offered have not shown any results that might warrant us in thinking that they might usefully replace the existing denominations." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 10

Me:

I'd've thought better of you than to incite your readers to commit the genetic fallacy, Dr Pulliam.

Besides, it's not like Hitler was a Christian. You're committing your fallacy at the expense of paganism.

Dr Pulliam:

I am not saying that the quote from Hitler proves anything, so I am not committing the genetic fallacy. I am merely citing a statement that he made. You are free to interpret it anyway you like.

Hitler was a Roman Catholic as I understand it and he never renounced his faith. Granted, he was not a typical RCC and he was obviously a sociopath, but he was not an atheist, as Hector Avalos clearly shows.

Me:

--I am not saying that the quote from Hitler proves anything

Oh, OK. Then...what was the point of posting it, I wonder?

--Hitler was a Roman Catholic as I understand it and he never renounced his faith

I'm no friend of the Roman Church, but I suggest you do read the link.

And I didn't claim he was an atheist. He was a pagan.

Dr Pulliam:

In addition, Hitler said in a proclamation to the German Nation February 1, 1933: "The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and co-operation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life." (My New Order, New York: Reynal & Hitchcock, 1941, p. 144.)

What is my point? My point is that one can believe that Christianity provides an objective moral code and still commit awful atrocities. The OT is full of these atrocities. So, what good is an "objective moral code" if it can lead to such acts? Christians will say, "well that it is not true Christianity ! But herein lies the problem, if the "objective moral code" of the Bible can be interpreted in different ways, how then can anyone be sure they have the correct moral code? So, to argue that one only has a sure basis for saying whether something is right or wrong, if it is based on the moral code of the Bible is misguided. My question is: "which moral code" because the Bible has several and they are contradictory. Christians cannot agree among themselves on what the "true" moral code is.

Me:

--My point is that one can believe that Christianity provides an objective moral code and still commit awful atrocities. 

1) Yes, quite. Don't tell me you're unfamiliar with the biblical doctrine known as "sin".

2) I suppose we're back to your "intuiting" that these "atrocities" were "awful", aren't we? But once again, apparently Hitler "intuited" that murdering Jews was self-evidently a good thing. So the objective outside observer has to ask: how do we know who's right between you 2?

--So, what good is an "objective moral code" if it can lead to such acts?

Obviously, it tells you that they are indeed atrocities. 

Are you a PhD in theology and do not understand these things?

--if the "objective moral code" of the Bible can be interpreted in different ways, how then can anyone be sure they have the correct moral code?

Oy. This is the kind of stuff I see from the least informed atheists on teh Interwebz, sir. It's the same way I know you're questioning me about the moral code of the Bible and not telling me that Jell-O 5 no bones and the further they fly the much. This is a postmodern, worthless, conversation-killer that cuts the throat of ALL communication. Try something else, please. 

--Christians cannot agree among themselves on what the "true" moral code is. 

Someone who's willing (and able) to repeat the message of the Bible, whether or not he agrees with it, would know that the Bible actually predicts such things. I'm having trouble seeing what good your education did you, to be honest...

(Please leave any comments at the Triablogue post.)

You will bow before me!

Following in the same vein of this previous post, the Former Fundy, Dr Ken Pulliam, is now attempting to simply define his way into moral justification.  It's easy, apparently.  Just assert, w/o argument (or by reference to an obscure book, in this case written by one Audi) that your view is "self-evident", and you're golden.  Let's see how it all plays out, when I pretend to assert w/o argument the opposite view.


Dr Pulliam,
There are certain beliefs that are self-evident, that is, they are not inferential beliefs.

No no, I do understand that.  The purpose of my reductio is to demonstrate the emptiness of your ipse dixit.
See, *I* say that "rape is morally compulsory" is in fact that which is self-evident.  You are mistaken in thinking that "rape is morally wrong" is self-evident.  And I have a whole bunch of people, both in prison (those who are being oppressed by the oppressive majority) and out of prison (who take their stand against The Man) behind me.


If your intuition tells you that rape is good, then you are a socio-path who will wind up in prison.

I knew it.  Your view reduces to might makes right.
Plus, this has nothing to say about the morality of rape.  Now you're just telling about what you'd prefer to do to someone who violates your preferences.
See, if I can gain enough power, then I can make the same category error as you and start saying that rape is morally compulsory.  Since I have the power.
This is the problem with your human-centered and human-based moral system.



There are always exceptions but the near unanimous opinion of man is that rape is wrong

The near-unanimous opinion of human societies throughout human history have not been atheistic.  If you don't respect counting noses at all times, I don't see why this isn't an exception too.


Hume's guilliotine does not work against foundationalism

It does until you can make some real connection between what you intuit and what is normative and prescriptive outside yourself, and why.



you should be able to make a real name for yourself by refuting Audi.

Right, just like I'd make a real name for myself in refuting evolution.  Those things aren't quite as simple as you make them out to be, sir.


Now, I've noticed, BTW, a post by a none-too-bright commenter in the same thread by the name of Geds

S/he apparently has no idea that when s/he said:

I self-identify as a feminist. My argument is this: women are people, ergo they deserve to be treated like people and not objects.

And I responded:

1) Prove the ergo. I'd encourage you to read up on Hume's Guillotine. I've been bringing it up for several threads now, and nobody's touched it. Not even Dr Pulliam, who, as a PhD holder shouldn't be afraid to delve into a little elementary philosophy. how does IS imply OUGHT?

2) My argument is this: atheist women are not people, ergo they deserve to be treated like objects and not like real people. And any ideology that says otherwise should be resisted. Prove me wrong.

that I was engaging in an internal critique, a hypothetical, a thought-experiment. Geds really thinks that I think that atheist women are not real people!  Geds also apparently thinks that I somehow thought that the Atheist Experience was going to let me run their show during an April Fools' prank a couple of years ago.  Yeah, not so much.  Anyway, unfortunately Geds represents the majority of American voters' thought level.  Now I'm all depressed...

What I do is what is right

Ken Pulliam, the Former Fundy, and I had some helpful conversations about his ideas of morality based on intuition, which are shared by many, especially atheists, in modern times.  Let's take a look at how well this extends out.
I'd said:
I bet you wouldn't ask "true or correct for whom?" if the question were: "Is it true that life on Earth evolved by a series of slight, successive modifications?"
Or am I wrong to think that? 
If I'm not wrong to think that, why would this be a valid question? I'm asking about objective morality, not "What you think is right". What you think is immaterial - you could be wrong. 

Ken said:
Let me ask you a couple of questions:
1. Is it always wrong to kill infants and toddlers?
2. Is it always wrong to own another human being as your personal property?
Regarding your question about evolution. I think there is plenty of evidence that leads me to believe that evolution is true. There is also plenty of reasons for me to think that child rape or any kind of rape is wrong.


I said:
1. No.
2. No.
Please answer them too. Thanks!
Now, you said that "evidence" leads you to think evol is true. Then you said "reasons" lead you to think rape is wrong. In what way can these latter "reasons" be likened to evidence you think you have for evol? Where is the prescriptive power in evidence for evol? And where is the prescriptive power in your reasons to categorically reject rape? Why do you reject rape while other atheists such as Dan Barker can think of scenarios in which it might be acceptable? And what of my scenario - is what Tkalim is doing wrong? How do you know?

Ken said:
I maintain that we as human beings have an instinct or intuition that certain things are wrong. Where does this intuition come from? I tend to think its just the way our brains have evolved. We can act against these intuitions, especially when an authority tells us its okay, but usually the authority gives us some rationale (excuse) why in this particular case its okay to go against our intuition.
Thus, my intuition tells me that its always wrong to kill infants and toddlers, its always wrong to own another human being as property and its always wrong to rape.
----

With that in mind, I'd like to propose a few other things that I personally know by intuition.
I maintain that we as human beings have an instinct or intuition that certain things are wrong. Where does this intuition come from? I tend to think it's just the way our brains have evolved. We can act against these intuitions, especially when an authority tells us it's OK, but usually the authority gives us some rationale (excuse) why in this particular case it's OK to go against our intuition.

Thus, my intuition tells me that it's always wrong to believe in Darwinian evolution, it's always wrong to own a computer, and it's always wrong to call oneself a Former Fundy.  Further, my intuition tells me that, not only is it wrong to believe in Darwinian evolution, Darwinian macroevolution actually never happened.  My intuition tells me that the Book of Mormon is true.  My intuition tells me that no atheist deserves the protection of law. That Ken's children are responsible for all the unsolved murders in the USA and Mexico.  That B. Hussein 0bamuhh is (against all evidence to the contrary) actually a really good President.  That the speed of light is ~26 miles per hour, but can get all the way to 30 mph if it really tries.

Now, the astute reader will note that I'd asked Ken whether it is possible to make an objective moral statement, independent of whether anyone believes it or not.  Ken no doubt thinks that Darwinian evolution is responsible for the variety of lifeforms we see on Earth today, independent of whether anyone believes it or not.  So when I ask him for a fact and he gives me an intuition, why can't I just play the same game myself?

The facts don't support some of the intuitions I listed above, you say?  Why doesn't that same argument bother Ken?

A fun, developing dialogue

I linked over from Pharyngula (which I certainly don't categorically recommend, but them's the facts) to a blog called "Former Fundy", by one Ken Pulliam.  I decided to comment on his post entitled "The Christian Delusion: Chapter Thirteen--Christianity Does Not Provide the Basis for Morality".

The conversation is developing nicely with some interesting exchanges so far, so feel free to check it out.