John Simmons  Friday, June 01, 2007 9:53 am Outstanding.

Michael J Kloss  Friday, June 01, 2007 10:30 am Beautiful close, absolutely Beautiful.

Steve Williamson  Friday, June 01, 2007 11:09 am How is Hitchens description of "evil" behavior not just a mutation to the moral norm that might be the next step of evolution? In fact, if Hitchens is to hold his views honestly, He should welcome mutations, and as many as possible. Evolution is progress toward survival that occurs through natural selection by trial and error, not conformity to Hitchen's views.

John Simmons  Friday, June 01, 2007 11:14 am Not to beat a dead horse, but he never once presented an argument this whole debate.

Steve Williamson  Friday, June 01, 2007 11:20 am True. The foolish man built his house upon the sand.

David L Parker  Friday, June 01, 2007 1:46 pm I thoroughly enjoyed following this debate over the past few weeks. IMHO the bankruptcy and inconsistency of the atheist world view was demonstrated in spades by your pointed questioning of Mr. Hitchens, who utterly failed to come up with any explanation for his obdurate moralizing. I winced when you compared him to "a witty but acerbic tenth-century archbishop with a bad case of the gout." OUCH! I think inviting him to the table at the end was good form, despite the fact that, according to Mr. Hitchens, it was an exhibition of "the immoral and suicidal doctrine that advocates forgiveness..." How ironic, I mean irenic of you....

Jon Swerens  Friday, June 01, 2007 1:57 pm An as usual, Christianity is on one hand way too severe and on the other hand way too soft and forgiving. Somewhere, Chesterton is laughing.

John Simmons  Friday, June 01, 2007 3:30 pm Pastor Wilson, is there any way that you two might keep in touch a la Bahnsen and Stein? I think what sets your debate with him apart from some of the others he's been involved with is that you've really given him a lot to think about that his bitterness and pride won't be able to keep out of his head.

Tim Prussic  Friday, June 01, 2007 5:23 pm Well done, Pastor. I appreciated reading it.

Patrick Gann  Friday, June 01, 2007 9:12 pm I can quite imagine Hitchens' further response to criticism of evolutionary-based morality. Which is, of course, "I don't care." "For now, this is how it works, and I'm glad to go along with it." Since he's so fixed on allowing the process of evolution to be the standard (or ... um ... *dynamic*) for which we accept morals, I wonder how he would respond to your own critique of Social Darwinism: survival of the fittest and all that. The poor are poor, so let's leave them that way. Those born with physical and mental defects deserve to die. So we have a man who believes in eugenics and a complete lack of compassion for those below him. Right? And if not, what else can he say if he sees evolution as a GROUNDS for morality?

PAUL KURITZ  Friday, June 01, 2007 10:42 pm The brightest and kindest defense of the faith of the 21st century. I thank God that He numbers me with you.

Meredith Twiss  Friday, June 01, 2007 11:48 pm Thank you, Rev Wilson, for these excellent exchanges with Mr Hitchens. I have learned much - both information and, more importantly, graciousness in a "fight." Now, a little off-topic, if I may. Mr John Simmons, did Bahnsen and Stein actually keep in touch? If so, how interesting! Could you please share your knowledge of this? Thank you again for the privilege of witnessing this great exchange. In Him Meredith in Australia

John Simmons  Saturday, June 02, 2007 1:40 am Meredith, they did, but it didn't bear fruit. Stein never came around. He did admit how flummoxed he was by the transcendental argument. Bahnsen wrote and spoke about their correspondence in several places. I'd love to read those letters! Hopefully David will drop by and comment.

Pete Glickenhaus  Saturday, June 02, 2007 1:58 am I think when Hitchens wrote the following, he hit the nail on the head: To state the case in another way, it suggests that without celestial sanction, you yourself would be unrestrained in your appetites and careless of other people. Awful though many of your opinions are to me, I decline to believe that you would, if you lost your faith, become base and self-centered. Throughout my discussions with people on this blog, there has been the constant rejoinder: "You're an atheist and believe that people can still be moral? BANG! You're dead!" Wilson makes the silly reply to Hitchens that, since our morality can be said to be a product of evolution, we shouldn't get too attached to it, that morality is basically up for grabs. I hope everyone can see the tenuousness of this argument, and that yes, morality is up for grabs, as long as we can say that our lungs are, too. Specious illustrations that liken evolutionary adaptations to motel rooms are absurd at best, and leave one wondering whether Wilson really knows anything at all about evolutionary theory, or misleading at worst, leaving one wondering how he, as an intelligent Christian, can stoop to such a deceitful analogy.

Pete Glickenhaus  Saturday, June 02, 2007 1:58 am Our morality, like lungs, eyes, and the rest of our faculties, has allowed to form successfully surviving societies. This means that the morality that we evince as a species today is basically very healthy for the species as a whole, which means good for humanity as a whole. I will say it again: look at the bonobos (or any other group of primates). They are not endowed with any Imago Dei as far as any Christian is concerned, and yet they display a remarkable sense of morality not only to others within their own group, but beyond those borders as well. Christians rejoinders such as Wilson's cannot possibly grapple with this problem adequately.

kdny  Saturday, June 02, 2007 2:06 am I was at a book club last night and we read "The Diaries of an Ex-Colored Man". The author relates a story of a preacher preaching on the terrors of hell, inviting those gathered to repent. The preacher informs them that their "arms are too short to box with God". Hitchens reveals that even after another century of evolution that his arms are still too short. In fact, he had his hands full with Wilson, how much more the Almight?

Pete Glickenhaus  Saturday, June 02, 2007 2:08 am In regards to Wilson's second problem, one might simply answer that, since morality generally is held to pertain to sentient beings, morality should be understood as a social phenomenon. A solitary individual cannot be moral or immoral, for these notions only obtain when other sentient beings are in relation to this individual. Once two persons are in relation, an ideal morality would take into account not just one of their concerns, but both. Thus, morality is the forged agreement of converging interests. This kind of thing can be seen yet again in other primates (and creatures other than primates as well). When an atheist calls another "immoral," it isn't because the atheist thinks that some metaphysical morality or universal and ontologically established standard of justice has somehow been violated, it is that standard of morality that is as ingrained and persisting as our eyes, lungs, and other evolutionarily-molded features. Just as we regard a child born with one lung or with no eyes as a non-metaphysical anomaly, there is no reason why this cannot be applied to our standards of ethics as well.

kdny  Saturday, June 02, 2007 2:14 am Pete, May I ask, what "healthy" morality is that? Are you really given humanities moral check-up a clean bill of health ("the morality that we evince as a species today is basically very healthy")? Maybe my I haven't evolved enough to appreciate the current healthy state of the world. But, Pete has declared it "good", so I'll take your word for it. If Pete can give the state of humanity a clean bill of health, then we need a second opinion. Like a bad appendix, humanity sins a sinechtomy. Now, if we can just put our finger on that ought, then we can fix it.

John Simmons  Saturday, June 02, 2007 2:15 am Pete, our lungs are up for grabs. Do you say that evolution has stopped with us? That would be an odd thing to say.

Pete Glickenhaus  Saturday, June 02, 2007 2:16 am The Humean answer that Wilson gives doesn't solve anything, for NO ONE is saying that evolutionary processes determines right or wrong, or that an "is" is determining "ought" in the evolutionary paradigm. Not at all. Again, one must wonder whether Wilson has any more than a cursory understanding of evolutionary theory, beyond that of the misguided, straw-man arguments of religious laypeople. "Ought," like I suggested earlier, is a standard that is forged through the multiplicity of interests in social interaction. It just so happens that evolution is going to favor a sense of ourght-ness within communities that will foster the best cooperation and altruism within its species-borders. This is generally the case.

kdny  Saturday, June 02, 2007 2:20 am "Ought" we to continue to bomb Iraq? Ought a rapist stop raping? I know, I know, it is Hitler, but consider Pete's ""Ought," like I suggested earlier, is a standard that is forged through the multiplicity of interests in social interaction. It just so happens that evolution is going to favor a sense of ourght-ness within communities that will foster the best cooperation and altruism within its species-borders." Evolution bless Adolph and the boys. Good stuff, Pete, keep posting.

Pete Glickenhaus  Saturday, June 02, 2007 2:22 am No, evolution has not stopped with us. And, yes, I said that our lungs are up for grabs, but only in the grand narrative of evolutionary time-scales, not in a motel-stay-like-brevity that Wilson assumes. Who says that evolution has stopped with us? I did not say or imply that, nor does anyone else, other than religious groups (as far as I am aware, at least). But to say that evolution continues means simply that, if humanity can find its ecological niche in the future, the human community that survives will be "fit"--that is, it will bear certain traits that are beneficial to its species as a whole. This means that whatever moral sense is generally in play will be favorable to people as a whole. I am speaking in general terms here, and not very precisely for want in space, but this is the basic idea.

kdny  Saturday, June 02, 2007 2:31 am Pete, you are simply begging now. In the grand narrative of evolutionary time, whatever story it is telling, OUR morality is less than a "motel-stay-like-brevity". It is a drive-by sort of stay. Do you really want to take your 76 years in the grand narrative of infinite time & chance as anything more than a "motel-stay-like-brevity"? Even look at the past century and how ideas and morality evolved in different countries and even regions within the United States. Pete keeps asserting "morality", although he has never told us what it is. The Christian can turn to the 10 Commandments (for starters), but what standard is Pete offering up? He keeps talking about interaction, but what interaction is that? Slave to slave owner? Mother to beaten child? American bombs to Iraqi children? Cho's bullets to his classmates? These are those interactions he keeps talking about, but he cannot tell us why they are wrong, but simply begs that they are interactions.

Pete Glickenhaus  Saturday, June 02, 2007 2:33 am Yes, evolution does "bless Adolph and the boys," but only in one sense. The very same evolutionary narrative that is "red in tooth and claw"--that is, utterly individualistic and selfish--is tempered by the social and cooperative. We have agreed as a species that the reasons we give for killing a member of our own kind need to live up to certain standards, standards that do not apply to other sentient beings (we eat burgers for example), and standards that have a certain common rigor that the Nazis did not live up to. The latter is why the United States is currently viewed with suspicion (and rightly so) by the rest of the world--because the current administration flouted the agreed-upon standards of the U.N.

Pete Glickenhaus  Saturday, June 02, 2007 2:41 am I am saying "right" and "wrong" are not metaphysical things to be found "out there", but that they are made in, and apply to, the creatures within their scope (i.e., humanity). You are right. I will not say what this "morality" is, because I don't think there is an essence to morality in the way that you suggest. Lungs have no essence (that is, they are the product of evolutionary processes, which assumes no teleology), are "up for grabs," etc.--but they are key to who we are here and now and most everyone has them. When people don't, they are treated because they are considered sick in some sense. This is how one might view morality from an evolutionary perspective. It shows the utter contingency of things, and yet it shows how these contingencies can be marvelously stable.

Pete Glickenhaus  Saturday, June 02, 2007 2:48 am Curiously, Wilson's Humean critique (which misses the mark in his argument), actually weighs against himself. For it is Wilson and other Christians that violate this distinction. They say that, because of an "is" (God exists, etc.), "oughts" necessarily follow (a certain moral scope). This is essentially Paul's argument in Romans 1. Nature, what "is", is set up in such a way that Paul is confident is making "ought" statements, that homosexuality is wrong, etc. This could not be a more obvious violation of the Humean distinction, and yet Wilson uses it in his argument against Hitchens, with the implication that he agrees with it? So, which is it?

Pete Glickenhaus  Saturday, June 02, 2007 2:57 am It has been said that Christians, at least, can turn to the Ten Commandments for starters, even though I must begin without any metaphysical foundations. Yes, the Ten Commandments, the very same commandments that are fully compatible with giving adultery, witchraft, working on the Sabbath, blasphemy, homosexuality and other "sins" capital punishment. Yes, the very same Ten Commandments that were quite compatible with the holy genocide of the Promised Land, wherein innocent women, children, and animals were needlessly and mercilessly slaughtered. Yes, those Ten Commandments are a wonderful foundation, indeed.

Pete Glickenhaus  Saturday, June 02, 2007 3:17 am N.B. I am not arguing against "Christianity" or "Christian morality" as such, only the very unsympathetic attitude that cannot seem to grant that the problems of morality somehow plague other systems of belief that do not plague Christianity, and that Christianity alone is able to offer the world something positive and moral. THAT is what I am defending against.

Chris Witmer  Saturday, June 02, 2007 3:32 am

kdny  Saturday, June 02, 2007 4:41 am Funny that Pistol Pete is willing to make all sorts of theories regarding social relations and its ability to draw up arbitrary norms, but the minute the Hebrews draw up social relations providing arbitrary norms he is outraged that they allowed adulterers, etc., to be killed, without mercy even. Remember, buddy, we are evolving. That is what survival meant at the time. Don't be so judgmental and self-righteous. It is what they (or your grand, corporate "we" for the UN) decided at the time. It is what it is, as they say, although maybe you would prefer it ought what it ought, right? Re: morality, Christians believe in morality, because of a personal God exists - "be ye holy as I am holy". Our morality flows from God's character and attributes. This isn't an unknown god or philosophical god, but the God that reveals himself as love. We aren't arguing for bare morality, but a morality that flows from YHWH. Re: Paul and Romans 1 you are confusing a couple of things. In short, "nature" (creation) is teleological, which you deny, and Paul sets the context in 1.18+, so Christianity (and Wilson) don't fall prey to Hume's arguments.

Steve Williamson  Saturday, June 02, 2007 5:45 am Pete- If the Nazi's had won the war thereby proving they were the fittest, would their morality then be right?

Jeremy Klein  Saturday, June 02, 2007 8:23 am Bottom line is that Pete, and I presume Hitchens as well (tho' I freely admit to not having read the debates, as, since I was raised an atheist and all my sibs and my father still are, I am quite familiar with the atheistic worldview), can't give any good reason to promote kindness, tolerance, charity, etc, rather than rapaciousness and selfishness, except that the former attributes tend to promote 'society' (p'raps they do, p'raps they don't; depends on the society, don't it?). He doesn't give any good reason to be willing to give up one iota of pleasure in order to promote society, however, does he?

Jeremy Klein  Saturday, June 02, 2007 8:29 am And, BTW, does Pete have a PhD in any of the fields directly relevant to evolutionary 'theory', e.g. paleontology, geology, etc? If not, why on earth should I accept his take on whether or not DW understands evolution any better than Pete does? And, if so, why should I take his interpretation of the data over against others with PhD's in the relevant fields who hold a contrary view to his? Particularly when he is not willing to admit the fact that, e.g., torturing an innocent child to death for fun is NOT wrong just because we have purposelessly evolved to think it is b/o some putative survival benefit to homo sapiens, but rather is wrong in and of itself and would be so even if an entire strata of society (say, ancient Rome) claims it's OK. Or even if the entire human race became collectively morally insane.

Eric Rasmusen  Saturday, June 02, 2007 8:37 am I enjoyed the debate because my guy was winning, but Hitchens was too easy a target. He embarassed himself by misunderstanding The Good Samaritan, he apparently hadn't ever asked himself about the basis for his moral opinions, which he thinks are both self-evident and universally shared. Here's what he should have said to defend his position, an argument harder to attack. "Human morality is the result of evolution. We all share brain wiring that makes us feel guilty when we murder our fathers, steal from our sisters, and lie out of pure malice. Therefore, a human is well advised not to do these things. That is why I call them immoral. Also, our wiring makes us feel happy in condemning them, so I do. continued at: http://www.rasmusen.org/x/2007/06/02/hitchens-versus-wilson/

Phil Walker  Saturday, June 02, 2007 8:55 am Pete, both of kdny's first paragraphs are telling, and I'd like to expound on them a little. You say our senses are up for grabs over evolutionary time-scales, and so presumably is our moral sense. But by condemning the Decalogue, you've just shown that you consider we've evolved significantly, morally speaking, in a matter of a few thousand years. In fact, given the way our societies ordered themselves even a hundred years ago, you'd probably say that we've evolved in relation to them, too. Morality seems to move much faster than biology. So, once again, why are we so attached to morality, given that the standards move so rapidly?

Pete Glickenhaus  Saturday, June 02, 2007 9:22 am Incommensurable vocabularies. That's what this seems to be; and I'm fine with that. It's inevitable, in the way I look at things. Let's be clear, however--I am not making absolutist statements about nature, reality, etc. I am simply arguing for a space for other points of view. And, contrary to whatever you might think, I am not judging anyone, nor do I think I am ridden with self-righteousness. Christians have their own commitments, which, while I might not share them in their specifics, I am happy to work with them to achieve common projects of social concern. I will try to thwart them in others, when their projects are not the same as my own. But that is life. My point about all these things is that it seems to me that all norms are arbitrary in some sense, but in others not. Arbitrary, in that they are subject to historical, cultural and linguistic contingency; not, in that they are the product of these things as well, which means that they are formed through the complex web-like, cultural Gestaltic interplay between many actors with different interests, competing predators, new and unsavory environments, etc.

Pete Glickenhaus  Saturday, June 02, 2007 9:22 am I can function as well as anyone in society. I am "moral" in many conventional senses. The difference is how we explain this morality. If you wish to look at things naturalistically and use a scientific vocabulary, then a Darwinian approach is what's available. You are free to use a Christian vocabulary to interpret the situation--no one is denying you that. The problem is that the reverse is true, that many Christians are denying others the right to define morality about from biblical precepts. The problem with that approach, however, is that it fails to explain how heroic acts of altruism occur in the non-human animal world. If Hitchens and myself choose to read humanity through the very same lenses as the rest of nature, then that is our right. There is a lot of value in that approach, I would say. For me, at least, it raises the question of why I choose to accord one status to humans that I don't accord to other animals--why I should encourage the needless slaughter of cows, pigs and others based upon such trivialities as tastebuds; or how the thirst for capital not only harms other human communities, but infringes upon the desires of other animals, too. Of course, you will ask why I should care at all. This silly question has been asked of me all along here, without paying attention to my question of how other animals can be sympathetic, too.

Pete Glickenhaus  Saturday, June 02, 2007 9:23 am My point about the Jews is that few today would accept what they considered as morality to be a healthy standard for society. Thus, appeals to the Ten Commandments are hardly any foundation from which to establish a moral code. It is clear that even within the Chrsitian community, the harsh standards of the theocracy, which are supposed to reflect the unchanging and holy character of God (is the Law not, as Paul said, holy, just and good?), wouldn't be accepted as reflecting justice or proper judgment. I am saying nothing more than that in my argument.

Pete Glickenhaus  Saturday, June 02, 2007 9:23 am I would say that the Humean distinction between is/ought is violated in the Godhead, and that is a good enough reason for Wilson to refrain from using it. Moreover, if it is true that Christians believe in morality because of the divine character, this hardly provides any basis whatsoever for a morality that I would be comfortable with. I think Greg Bahnsen and the theonomists have some pretty good arguments for how, if the Law must reflect the immutable character of God, that this Law cannot change. A community according to divine precepts thousands of years ago shouldn't be any different on this logic than today. Against the Bible, I value the lives of animals, homosexuals, and other groups that don't exactly line up with the biblical picture of human oughtness. I think that there are better ways to deal with adultery than capital punishment. More than anything, I think, though, I can hardly see how the picture of eternal torment can possibly reveal any notion of justice to humanity. Nor can I see how a God who can supposedly ordain all things as he pleases provide an example of grace when most of his predestinatory ordination will result in most of humanity burning in hell forever (when it didn't have to be that way). That's just me, though. Call me crazy.

Pete Glickenhaus  Saturday, June 02, 2007 9:34 am **To Steve W.** If the Nazis had won, and they were the only community on earth left, then within that community, a Nazi standard of morality would be the common code of ethics. I will refrain from using "right" because I don't like that word. It has too many metaphysical connotations, and doesn't exactly jive with a Darwinian vocabulary, either. Now, I am saying that I would agree with this Nazi morality; I wouldn't one bit. I don't prefer the deaths of Jews. I also don't prefer that animals be killed and tested on for things like food and cosmetics, either. Bonobos wouldn't prefer if one of their own were harmed. Why? Because they have the ability to be sympathetic, to recognize in the face of anotehr bonobo, their own face. I think this same capability is present in humans, and for that I am thankful.

Pete Glickenhaus  Saturday, June 02, 2007 9:40 am ***To Jeremy Klein***You're right. I don't give any reason to take pleasure in doing good. Actually, I don't understand this criticism one bit. Forgive me, but I just don't. Besides some unidentified, existential experience, is there any reason ever to take pleasure in doing something? I take pleasure in walking my dog, in seeing my dog happy, in seeing my dog run and play. Why, you ask? I have no idea. I also don't know why I like certain styles of music, some foods and not others, etc. I don't feel like I or anyone else needs to give justifications for these things. In fact, I question whether they actually *can* be justified.

Pete Glickenhaus  Saturday, June 02, 2007 9:52 am ***To Phil Walker***I wouldn't say that our moral sense at all has evolved since ancient times. Not at all! In fact, there are many people who share the same sorts of values then and now. There were vegetarians then as now. Homosexuals then as now. Atheists then as now. Power-hungry people then as now. People who loved their families then as now. People who thought women worthy of equal consideration then as now. People who thought that democracy was a better way of doing things then as now. I wouldn't say that we've evolved in terms of morality over the last few thousand years. My point about the Decalogue was that most people--including Christians--wouldn't think OT morality provides anything worth modelling a society after. That was it. We, as 20th century Americans (or whoever "we" are), value certain moral commitments, I would say, because of the contingent events of history, not because there is some Moral Law pervading us all. Either way, I have a question: how do Christians live with the fact that the founding documents of their religious systems advocate a morality, a morality which is never rescinded by any of the NT documents or writers, that most of them would disagree with?

Steven Williamson  Saturday, June 02, 2007 9:54 am Pete- But wouldn't the nazi morality be the thing that ought to be followed since it was what evolved?

Steven Williamson  Saturday, June 02, 2007 9:57 am And why would you not "prefer" it since it was triumphant in evolution? Or are you saying that your morality is better? But how is it better if it doesn't survive evolution? If you use another standard to judge competing moralities outside of evolution where does it come from other than your own preferences?

Steven Williamson  Saturday, June 02, 2007 10:01 am

Steven Williamson  Saturday, June 02, 2007 10:02 am

Pete Glickenhaus  Saturday, June 02, 2007 10:06 am ***Once again, to Klein*** You wrote that I am unwilling to say that torturing an innocent child to death for fun is not wrong in and of itself. You are correct, but only in one sense. I believe "right" and "wrong"--as properties of language--can only have meaning within vocabularies that are both shared and developed in interaction with others. Thus, there is nothing "good" or "bad", "right" or "wrong", etc. without a human perspective. From a torture's perspective, it might be good. From a victim's perspective, it is bad. But add a larger framework, a larger community, and these things mean something more than just either a predator's or victim's perspective on things. A standard of some sort becomes inevitable within the functioning locus of the community. The same is found in primates and other animals. Codes of action, certain mores or respect or whatever, are in place. You might think this provides a precarious basis for societal ethics. I disagree, for the simple reason that, if this innocent child has a mother who loves him/her dearly, this mother will plead for others to come to her cause, appealing to the sympathies of mothers around her, who have husbands that know what it is to love a son or daughter, uncles and aunts who share that concern--soon an entire community is mobilized out of a shared concern over the plea of one mother, and something marvelous is established: a Law, a standard that says "Don't torture kids."

Chris Witmer  Saturday, June 02, 2007 10:09 am Pete, you are not saying anything that has not been thoroughly refuted many times over. Your assertion that Hume's Is/Ought Problem remains problematic for Christian theism amounts to simply a different way of stating Euthyphro's Dilemma. Euthyphro's Dilemma is indeed a dilemma for Greek gods, which are simply men projected large, but it is not a dilemma at all for the Bible's God. I am not able to give you a sufficient explanation in the space allotted to us in these comments, but click the link to read a pithy explanation concerning Euthyphro's Dilemma and the God of the Bible. In a related vein, you might also want to check out Ralph Smith's much more detailed response to the particular arguments of Michael Martin's "Atheism, Christian Theism, and Rape" which can be reached by clicking here. If you find Smith's essay to be stimulating reading, you owe it to yourself to click on "Apologetics" in the sidebar and read his other essays Why Bertrand Russell Was Not a Christian and The Harmony of Faith and Reason: Why Believe the Bible? I hope this helps . . .

Steven Williamson  Saturday, June 02, 2007 10:27 am Pete, You wrote -soon an entire community is mobilized out of a shared concern over the plea of one mother, and something marvelous is established: a Law, a standard that says "Don't torture kids." Does this mean that mobs, or societies, never do anything immoral? If so, how? If morality is the societal consesus how can it ever be wrong? If it is never wrong, how does it evolve by becomming "better", and how do you judge better?

cantemir  Saturday, June 02, 2007 10:37 am Pete, Your morality doesn't give you a counterargument to a slaver, a rapist, etc. It merely expresses a preference which (you hope) your society happens to share. What would you say to an overseer bearing a whip - "be like the bonobo, my friend, and weep to see your brother's tear?" You would have had no choice but to denigrate John Brown while praising Simon Legree.

Pete Glickenhaus  Saturday, June 02, 2007 10:57 am **To Steven W.** I don't think there is any transparent, universal, or fail-proof method or principle to determine what is "better" or "worse." I think each circumstance presents unique problems, and that each individual, operating from his or her own contingent perspectives, must decide for themselves what they prefer.

Steven Williamson  Saturday, June 02, 2007 10:59 am Pete- So you are saying a person's morality is simply their preference?

Pete Glickenhaus  Saturday, June 02, 2007 11:08 am I wouldn't say it's as simple as choosing a shirt or anything akin to that, but, ultimately, yes. I think that people's preferences are formed by their own unique history and experiences, and that no two humans share an identical narrative. There's a subjectivity there, to be sure, but I think there's a commonality that forged through relational interplay, too.

Pete Glickenhaus  Saturday, June 02, 2007 11:11 am ***To Cantemir*** I don't think there's much of a conversation, let alone a counter-argument, to be had with a rapist. The fact that someone is using brute force rather than communication or dialogue shows that there is no common basis by which to approach them. The most one can do when confronted with force is to respond either by fighting or fleeing. One can imagine a girl, screaming to her rapist, "But, wait! Isn't what you're doing immoral? Listen to reason, friend! Be sensible for a moment!" It just won't happen.

Steven Williamson  Saturday, June 02, 2007 11:20 am Pete- If a rapist is raping isn't he doing what is moral for him because he prefers it?

Natalie  Saturday, June 02, 2007 12:33 pm I just wanted to stop by and give Wilson a standing ovation. I did not expect to be confronted by that thing someone posted./shudder/

Steve Williamson  Saturday, June 02, 2007 12:41 pm Natalie- if you are referring to my post above yours--sorry. Doesn't look so good out of the context of the exchange.

Pete Glickenhaus  Saturday, June 02, 2007 1:55 pm Absolutely--the rapist prefers to use brute force rather than less abrasive measures. But so what? What is the import of your question? It doesn't suggest that there's no standard that can be forged by a society. Either way, getting a rapist to stop what they're doing won't be by confronting them with "reason" or "ethics"--as if they can be reasoned with at all--but by reforming their behavior. And behavior can be reformed in all sorts of ways. The point is to get the rapist to change his or her behavior and thus have him or her infringe less on the interests of others (the interest of not being raped, of not being forced into sex, violently, etc.). There are a multitude of ways by which this can be accomplished. One way is by indoctrinating them (and I don't mean this in a derogatory sense) into the grammar of Christianity. If that works, then great. But there are other ways, too. Counseling, education, and other means have proven very effective.

Pete Glickenhaus  Saturday, June 02, 2007 2:01 pm Most rapists, I would take it, have been reared in a society that does not look favorably upon rape. Thus, a rapist probably has it ingrained in his or her "system" that rape is not something that is generally a good thing, since, generally speaking, rape is frowned upon. The rapist probably feels that rape is wrong, but just doesn't care. Even if the rapist doesn't feel that, if rape is just something that he or she does, there are still societal consequences--consequences that are well-known and enforced by the powers that be. So, even if the rapist feels like rape is something acceptable on his or her terms, that person is probably fully aware that the society at large does not welcome such invasions.

Pete Glickenhaus  Saturday, June 02, 2007 2:10 pm My point is saying all of this is that, I don't think anything is gained by claiming that rape in and of itself is wrong, as opposed to "we do not believe rape to be something acceptable in our society." The differences between the two are virtually nil. I don't believe that there's any way to get beyond history and into metaphysics. I believe that standards of morality, etc. are what humanity makes them to be. That might sound jarring and troubling to many, but I don't think that this has the anarchic consequences that many think it has. Everyone has different particular interests, and everyone has need of something else that another has. This forces a sort of cooperation that reaches an equilibrium in the outcome of interaction. This has been demonstrated over and over again through historical research. That is just somethhing that happens. One might say "rape is metaphysically wrong!" and other "we have decided not to tolerate rape in our society," and the consequences are the same, the practical outworkings will be identical. People will still be jailed, have their names dragged through the mud because of social disrepute, and generally lose their livelihood because of the social consequences. What if they don't get caught? Then they won't stop doing it, on any paradigm.

Pete Glickenhaus  Saturday, June 02, 2007 2:38 pm By the way, I think most of you out there would find me a very reasonable and generous individual. I could probably be friends with most of you, granted that you wouldn't get too hung up on metaphysico-abstract disagreements. I am relatively "moral" by most standards. The divergence is on this abstract level. For me, this proves my point, which is a pragmatist one. We can hold all sorts of diverging notions in the realms of abstraction (I could hold, e.g., that everything is made of jelly, etc.), but I think that often in terms of particular interests and projects, we can show a remarkable degree of convergence. Sometimes this will not be the case (e.g., in the case of gay marriage, which I affirm). In others, we will not converge, but on grounds and for reasons that cannot be given a very distinct religious connotation (politics can be religiously motivated, but sometimes there are facets of the discussion that don't have religious overtones either way). In others, we will find ourselves in surprsing agreement.

Steve Williamson  Saturday, June 02, 2007 2:55 pm Peter- I agree that we probably could be friends and I appreciate your discussions here- it is helpful for me to understand where you are coming from. However, I do think there is a great significance in saying that something is wrong vs. society frowns upon it. On of the biggest differences being the ability to judge society itself. If society is where morality lies there is never an immoral society and there can be no reason to change society for the better. In order to do that you must be judging society itself by some standard which your view of morality doesn't admit. The Nazi's were evil even if most people in their society agreed with what they were doing.

W H Jackson  Saturday, June 02, 2007 5:13 pm Great discussion ... I can't wait,however, for Hitchens' publisher to announce C.H.'s next series of debates in Riyadh and Teheran. Oh, I guess not. The money is here.

Chris Witmer  Saturday, June 02, 2007 5:21 pm My apoligies to Natalie for the gross-out image -- that's just a Halloween costume, by the way.

lewsta  Saturday, June 02, 2007 5:34 pm Pete g, I've been interested as I've followed your discussion here. I DO appreciate your calm and, yes I'll say it, charitable manner displayed. You've done well in advancing some interesting points for consideration. One thing you said early on was that morality can only be displayed, or demonstrated, in some form of society...not by one person alone. As I've pondered this, I find I can't agree. Compare and contrast the morality displayed by two ancient characters....Job, tormented by plagues, disasters, etc, refuses to curse God, or even be angry with Him...he (Job) maintains a strong moral high ground in enduring his circumstances and retaining his full trust in God. Contrast with Jonah..commanded to go and preach to the nasty folks at Nineveh, he first refuses..all by himself...and brings calamity on others in result of it. He eventually does what he is bid, and becomes miffed when the people of that place repent and "get right with God". He goes off, alone, and sulks...a gourd plant springs up, giving him shade as he sits there with his mouth poked out, angry at God. God takes away the gourd..and he becomes angrier, railing at God for taking away his shelter. All alone, out there on the hillside, he SINS, becoming unrighteously, immorally angry at God. No one else about to be his target..only God...his behaviour is plainly immoral in God's sight.

lewsta  Saturday, June 02, 2007 5:45 pm Now, to segue into some form, any form, of "society" where many people are involved..if "moral" is defined as the preference of the people, then how can we treat the Supreme Court decision which rendered the anti-sodomy law of Texas "wrong", and to be struck down? Here we have the State of Texas using their own process of establishing what is acceptable within their own borders, declaring an activity "wrong" and so treated. Yet, here come a group of nine other citizens and declare the "preference" of the people of Texas to be wrong. How do your theories of "evolution of morality" play out here? (never mind, for the moment, whether Texas held the moral high ground in the substance of this law, I am treating the process whereby that decision of the people was deemed, by outsiders, to be in error). Similarly, some here have mentioned they do not like the killing of Iraqi children (nor do I). Yet, how many in this country make any effort to deal with the deaths of 4.4 MILLION American children, which, since the start of the Iraqi war, have been killed..while yet in their mothers' wombs. How is the killing of Iraqi children immmoral, but the simultaneous killing of American children not? And so, you might understand, YOUR basis for morality does not seem to be a solid basis. Personally, I much prefer to refer to some standard originating OUTSIDE society, and imposed upon all men equally from without.

lewsta  Saturday, June 02, 2007 6:05 pm We find behaviours declared "unacceptable" by society's preferences which have nothing to do with morality. Take speed limits. To drive at 120 mph on a crowded motorway is immoral...thou shalt not kill. Driving I-5 through California's central valley at 80 is illegal--counter the "preference" of that state, and, by your definition immoral. I've done that stretch of motorway when driving at ONLY 80 mph WOULD be immoral..as it puts a great hazard on the other drivers well over 90mph. Do I do the legal thing or the moral thing....and what of your premise that society's expressed preference is what is moral? When alone, clear day, no traffic for miles...it would be illegal (by your definition, immoral as well) to drive at 75 when it is posted at 70. But is it immoral? If I hold to the moral basis for this law (thou shalt not kill), I do nothing immoral driving at even 80 when safe to do so. I observe that driving across Texas on I-10 the speed limit is POSTED at 75....is what is legal and moral in Texas suddenly illegal AND immoral in California? No, Pete, morality MUST originate externally to society, else it is not morality. What you describe as morality, "evolving", is social custom or preference. Moralty is completely other. Universal, neutral, no respecter of persons or status, unchanging. Yes, what was moral four thousand years ago is yet today.What was then immoral will remain so until the heavens are rolled up like a scroll.

Pete Glickenhaus  Sunday, June 03, 2007 12:56 am ** To Lewsta ** You have, I think, identified a major problem, a major division, between our ways of thought. It's akin for you to debate the issues with a Jehovah's Witness--a lot of the same words are used, but the meanings and mental framework is incommensurable. I like to think of morality in naturalistic terms, terms that allow me to see the connection between human communities and other animal ones. This just so happens to be an atheistic morality, too, since it is naturalistic, historical, and non-foundational. If a person believes in God as a person or community of persons (which I understand the Trinity to be), the that person (Job, e.g.) feels himself to have responsibilities to that God. Absolutely, and Job pretty much keeps up his ethical end of the bargain in the story (although he gets a little whiny at times). If a person believes this (which I don't object to, by the way), then Job, Paul, Abraham, Isaiah, and the other luminaries of the biblical canon (and beyond) are well-worthy of imitation.

Pete Glickenhaus  Sunday, June 03, 2007 1:03 am **Continued** I am agnostic on the issue of whether God exists. I don't particularly care if a person calls me a theist (because I could believe in God), an agnostic (because I really don't know), or an atheist (because my mental hardware operates on explicitly atheistic [which is to say, historical, naturalistic, and non-metaphysical] grounds). I have no idea what the term "God" might mean, nor what the term "exist" might mean when applied to "God." If you prefer, I am radically apophatic. This is because there is another tacit debate going on between all of us here, that goes unacknowledged. It is the debate between realism and anti-realism. I am an anti-realist (or a pragmatist, irrealist or constructivist). Most of you are probably not. This makes our conversation doomed from the start, because we end up talking about symptomatic concerns rather than the main issue.

Pete Glickenhaus  Sunday, June 03, 2007 1:11 am **Cont.** Going back to the Job story, here's what I think. I feel that, if God exists, he has the same sort of responsibilities that I would value towards other sentient beings. I know this will sound like I am creating God in my own image, but, as a constructivist, I believe that this is all anyone can do--understand things in terms that makes sense to an individual's understanding. If someone does not like my descriptions of things or understandings, what can I do? They are the one thing that I can truly call my own. My perspective, my little subjectivity, my little window through which I peer into and interact with the world, is the only thing I can truly call my own--and even that, I would say, is rented. For the language I use, the mental categories, the particular experiences, have all been established before I arrived, so that I am a captive to historical contingency in some sense. I am a product of my times. It cannot be otherwise, in my view. So back to Job, and my view of God. I think God, if he is going to model for us the way in which humans ought to do deal with one another, must show it in the same terms.

Pete Glickenhaus  Sunday, June 03, 2007 1:25 am **Cont.** This, you will say, is what he did in the Incarnation. Fair enough. I think that the Incarnation is a marvelous metaphor of self-sacrificial love. But we're talking about Job here. In this story, God is basically having a dispute with Satan, a heavenly bet, as it were. The Accuser thinks Job will spit in God's face, that Job loves God for what God gives him. Job, in other words, is a proto-prosperity gospelite. In order to settle this bet, God kills a lot of people and animals, and brings Job to such agonizing depths that he is reduced to a death-willing silence. (I am aware Satan did these things, that God "allowed" these things to occur, but I don't see any difference between primary and secondary causes in the divine economy.) Why God has to do this to prove to the Accuser is beyond me. Why God has to prove anything at all to Satan is a mystery, too. What occurs in this story is a bet that gets a little out of hand. God, here, doesn't have anyone in mind other than himself. For, as God, one must assume that he knows Job is a faithful man at heart, and that this ordeal is unnecessary--especially as it involves the deaths of his entire family (except his bitchy wife, of course, and his "friends") and other animals. I don't understand this sort of activity, and I certainly don't think it models anything worth imitating.

Pete Glickenhaus  Sunday, June 03, 2007 1:32 am **Cont.** At the conclusion, God basically says the same thing that Paul will reiterate in Romans 9-11: "Who are you, O Man, who questions God?" But, if I am worth anything at all, if I am valuable in some sense, then my perspective DOES matter (it does to me, at least), and thus so do my preferences to be treated in certain ways and not in others. I think the Job story models poorly a master-slave relationship. The master has unlimited power, which he uses to settle pithy disputes at the expense of others. The slave is cautioned merely to obey and not question. There is a cosmic order, Job, and you are way low on the totem pole of being. This story verges on Totalitarianism, in my view. Now, I don't think this has to be the main thrust of the story. I get what the author is pointing at. Be faithful to God. His ways are beyond yours. He gives, and he takes away. But the sketch of God's higher ways that the author gives shows them to be no more pitiful, gratituitous and self-aggrandizing than the worst of human ways. It thus justifies power and its privileges over and above concern for others. After all, even though Job is restored his fortune, my guess is that he'd still rather have his entire family preserved in health and be poor, rather than be rich again, and now without them.

Pete Glickenhaus  Sunday, June 03, 2007 1:54 am **Cont.** I understand why you feel that morality must originate without society. I cannot for the life of me figure out what that means, let alone see how this results in something better. For the past 2,000 yrs. (not counting OT), people have believed that it is metaphysically wrong to kill, etc., and yet this has not stopped the most atrocious things from occurring. That says to me that understanding morality in the way you defined it doesn't have the pay-off that it is said to. This is because people have a nice way of using their hermeneutical imaginations to find exceptions in the rules, interpreting them in ways that suit their needs. Thus, we are now at the level of competing intepretations. If we are all at the level of competing interpretations over a given set of words, we are reduced to appealing to our peers on a basis that intra-communal. In order to show why our way is better, we have to appeal to pragmatic concerns to show why our interpretation will have the best results. When someone can do this, a large and overwhelming consensus is reached. One interpretation wins out because it satisfies the practical needs of the people better. I find the metaphysical assertations unnecessary, therefore, and prefer not to entertain them at all. I don't think there's a way to get out of history, and that claims to metaphysics and Truth end up being rhetorical means of persuasion.

Steven Williamson  Sunday, June 03, 2007 1:55 am Good morning Pete.-But how does an impersonal universe or a society that doesn't share your preferences care about your perspective and why should they?

David L Parker  Sunday, June 03, 2007 1:59 am ***To Mr. Glickenhaus*** You said, "I know this will sound like I am creating God in my own image, but, as a constructivist, I believe that this is all anyone can do--understand things in terms that makes sense to an individual's understanding. If someone does not like my descriptions of things or understandings, what can I do? They are the one thing that I can truly call my own. My perspective, my little subjectivity, my little window through which I peer into and interact with the world, is the only thing I can truly call my own--and even that, I would say, is rented. For the language I use, the mental categories, the particular experiences, have all been established before I arrived, so that I am a captive to historical contingency in some sense. I am a product of my times. It cannot be otherwise, in my view." What you have said is exactly what Jesus, and later Paul, said is the state of unregenerate humanity. It is precisely why Nicodemus was so flummoxed by Jesus' assertion that one must be 'born anew' to see the kingdom...

Pete Glickenhaus  Sunday, June 03, 2007 2:07 am **Cont.** Again, I don't like the words "right" or "wrong," and so I will not use them. I would distinguish very much between the issue of killing of Iraqi children and abortion. I don't agree with your definition of "children." Again, here it is with the definitions. I suppose the right of a woman to an abortion, but only under certain circumstances. I define ethics in terms of suffering, and so when an organism does not seem to have any faculty that admits of suffering, ethics do not apply. This is why I don't eat animals, but eat plants instead--one seems to have a capacity for suffering; the other doesn't. When it comes to fetuses in the womb, before the end of the first trimester, there appears to be no development of either the brain or nervous system that would render suffering a significant factor. After this part develops, however, I would not wish for a woman to have an abortion. I would prefer abortion not to occur at all, but I feel that my position tries to incorporate all interests as best as possible. Before the end of the first trimester, there is no interest in the fetus to be spoken of that can be distinguished meaningfully from plant life. After this at some point, things change. Again, though, I would prefer if abortion did not occur at all, and think that it shouldn't be something that occurs easily.

Pete Glickenhaus  Sunday, June 03, 2007 2:13 am **To Steve W.** Good morning to you, too! I don't think the universe or anyone has metaphysical obligations to me. Your very question, if I am going to answer it on your terms, requires me to enter the conversations with the very assumptions that you hold, and which I don't. Why should people take my perspective into consideration? I don't think there is an answer. I might just as well ask: "Why not?"

Steve Williamson  Sunday, June 03, 2007 2:14 am Pete- In contrast to the impersonal universe we have a God who was incarnate in Jesus Christ who weeps in John 11 because of the weeping and sadness of others over Lazarus' death. He knew Lazarus was to be raised, that there was a heaven and so that death was not what it appeared, but he wept over the pain and suffering of others. God does value human perspective.

Steve Williamson  Sunday, June 03, 2007 2:16 am It doesn't suit them, they are too busy, they don't care...etc. Your preference may be that they do care, but that is your preference and they are under no obligation to adopt it.

Steve Williamson  Sunday, June 03, 2007 2:17 am Have church, got to go. I will catch up with you this afternoon. By then I am sure that you will have converted and we can rejoice together .

Pete Glickenhaus  Sunday, June 03, 2007 2:57 am **Steve W.** Yes, they are under no obligation to adopt it, metaphysically speaking. Again, though--my point above: even if God says "You must do..."--even if people felt there to be a metaphysical obligation--that won't make it magically happen. I don't see how a person's belief in the existence of a God necessarily results in a better morality. History shows that it doesn't.

Touchstone  Sunday, June 03, 2007 3:44 am I can't speak for Pete, but my understanding of constructivism is that it would not simply validate social consensus, declaring that "moral" is whatever the majority decides. The complain upthread was that Nazism, if it had succeeded and endured, would be seen by Pete or other constructivists as "moral", by definition. I don't think that's correct. A local example might be to look at Pete's refusal to eat meat, or foods that cause suffering in the process of provisioning. Certainly, in this society, that is not a moral "consensus". Does Pete consider that a kind of de facto morality? I think not. And the reason for this is that while constructivist moral rationales are not pegged to cosmic, transcendent absolutes, they are pegged to practical ideals: the elimination/minimization of unnecessary suffering, for example. Pete can point to the local ideal of preventing suffering as a stand against the "meat eating majority", but one that is pegged to practical, not transcendent principles. Anyway, I think that's something that is commonly misunderstood by Christians. Doug Wilson, included, if his letters to Hitchens are any guide.

kdny  Sunday, June 03, 2007 4:24 am T-stone, Since they ruffed you up at Triablogue and I know where you are coming, I don't deem it necessary to spend much time with you, but your construct is in no better shape. How can Pete identify what is necessary or not? Is he omniscient that he can identify the necessary and unnecessary? Also, simply, why does suffering matter? All of these atheists - Hitchins, Harris, and Pete - are all bent out of shape by suffering, but it simply is. Even Hitchins identifies the suffering due to evolutionary processes and our frontal lobes not developing enough, so it is what it is. His "practical principles" are still arbitrary, so he, and yourself, being the warm fuzzy, tolerant Christian, is really in no better shape. As it is written: "Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds. They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity." The Gentiles, like Pete and others, are futile in their thinking. Hopefully you can agree with God on this matter.

Pete Glickenhaus  Sunday, June 03, 2007 4:40 am Touchstone, I appreciate the elucidation.

Touchstone  Sunday, June 03, 2007 4:50 am kdny, I believe the constructivist would simply point to suffering as self-evidently negative, a position which seems quite reasonable if you were to stick your hand over an open flame. Give it a try (but just for a brief moment, enough to make my point, but not to cause lingering damage!) and you will understand that humans have a built-in, visceral, biological aversion to pain and suffering. Indeed, some suffering is necessary, as in the pain from the flame, to warn you of trouble and threats to your well-being. The principle that is being pointed at by constructivists, among others, is that necessary suffering is to be accepted, by virtue of its necessity. Gratuitous suffering is self-evidently to be avoided. That's why you avoid needlessly exposing your flesh to open flame after all. That's not a transcendent principle, save for the fact that it's a emergent circumstances from God's creation; it proceeds from God's design of the universe. But *locally*, the aversion to unnecessary suffering is just a biological intrinsic... a self evident principle that even a newborn infant understands.

Pete Glickenhaus  Sunday, June 03, 2007 4:52 am Of course I don't identify what is necessary or unnecessary, and of course I don't presume omniscience. Actually, it is the inverse. I affirm wholeheartedly that I can only speak from my own tiny, contingent, and local perspective, from the experiences I have undergone, etc. I am not saying suffering matters, period. I am saying suffering matters TO ME. That is all. The question of "Why?" which is always being persistently asked does not need an answer, for that answer will be too abstract too matter in my opinion. The question of "Why?" enters into the realm(s) of metaphysics, which I refuse to enter, for reasons that I have already explained. It is metaphysics, in my opinion, that is futile thinking. Yes, I affirm that everything is arbitrary in some sense, including my own perspective. I am not claiming a universality for my own beliefs that I refuse to everyone else's. Not at all. I know what it is to suffer, to feel pain, to feel loss, etc., and I have sympathy for other people and animals who go through the same, and would like to prevent them from undergoing as much of it as possible. Why I am required to have a metaphysics for this, I cannot understand. Other animals feel sympathy, too, and perform heroic acts of altruism. Why must there be one explanation for that behavior, and something totally different for mine?

Philip Gons  Sunday, June 03, 2007 5:24 am Very well done. I thoroughly enjoyed the debate. For anyone interested, I compiled the debate and have made it available as a PDF or Word doc on my website.

foo2  Sunday, June 03, 2007 8:01 am I imagine it’s not unique to Colorado Springs, but in high school soccer here we have the “mercy rule”. That is when a team is up 8-0 they take one player off the field, then at 9-0 they take another player off the field and then at 10-0 the game is over, regardless of what the clock says. This debate has needed the “mercy rule”, as it has been almost an embarrassment of riches to see the licking that Mr. Hitchens has taken. However God, always upsetting the tables, has shown Mr. Hitchens another “mercy rule” and used Pastor Wilson to clearly extend the Gospel to him. As I worshiped this morning it was among my prayers to see other foes vanquished like him, but also that he might also be destroyed as an enemy by becoming a brother and friend. Thanks Pastor Wilson for some of the best apologetic stuff since Professor Lewis sat in front of the radio mike some sixty years ago and gave us “Mere Christianity”. -Doug Hammerstrom

kdny  Sunday, June 03, 2007 1:22 pm Once again T-stone you have simply assumed what you want to prove and Pete is still in the same boat. Some deem torturing Camp X-Ray individuals as necessary and others do not, I simply asked, how you determine what is necessary? And you respond, "It is self-evident"? That's dumb. Descartes, Sponoza, Leibniz, and the Founding Fathers held to self-evident truths and they all disagreed, so save us this nonsense. I once heard a story of a man, G. Gordon Liddy I think, talking with a gov't official who asked, How do we know you won't talk? He put his hand over a candle, burning his hand, and said, "They can't get me to talk." Is this necessary or unnecessary? That's the question I ask and you respond with it being self-evident. Are you T-Stone or Hitchins?

Steve Williamson  Sunday, June 03, 2007 1:59 pm Pete- I am trying to understand in your view what altruism and heroism are if everything is ultimately arbitrary and a matter of your personal preference. Wouldn't acts of altruism and heroism simply be acts you prefer? If so, why should we need any explanation or marvel at the fact that you like some acts and not others?

Touchstone  Sunday, June 03, 2007 2:23 pm kdny, Did you try putting your hand over an open flame? If not, try it (with my cautions as above). What was your reaction, and why did you react that way? It's come to this -- although I will point out this is kdny and not Doug Wilson pressing this point; the "Christian position" you offer here is that man really doesn't have any rational basis to resist or avoid his own suffering, let alone the suffering of others around him. His overwhelming urge to pull his hand out from above the flame is *unjustified*, now. It's come to that? I don't know of any philosophers that have denied man's basic aversion to suffering as a given. As I said, all one need to do is put one's hand over an open flame to bring the point home, hard. As for Liddy, that sounds like he had a necessity in place; he needed to convince his peers he could tolerate suffering in defense of his secrets. In his view, he needed to endure that pain as a demonstration of his will power. The aversion I'm talking about is to the suffering that serves no good purpose, that is unnecesary. If you're committed to the idea that such an aversion does not exist, find a flame and cook your hand over it for a few seconds. My point will be painfully clear.

kdny  Sunday, June 03, 2007 4:51 pm T-stone, simply put, you cannot demonstrate what sufferings are necessary or not. There is a huge leap from your "self-evident" truth re: an individuals aversion to suffering to a moral necessity that I must make sure others don't suffer. It may be necessary, given Iranians understanding of the world, for the Jews to suffer. Also, as an aside, there is a huge leap from you "self-evident" aversion to the uniformity of nature, which your flame test necessitates, which Petey's worldview cannot demonstrate. Anyway, if you care to respond, this is my last.

Pete Glickenhaus  Monday, June 04, 2007 12:43 am I would agree with kdny here, that it is extremely difficult to establish grounds that provide universal verification of what is universally necessary or not. In the earliest days of Christianity, there were debates between Christians over how necessary martyrdom was. I think Touchstone's point, however, is that it is a rare thing for someone or something to put themselves in harm's way without justification. His point is that, if there weren't some instinctual aversion to shy away from unnecessary suffering, (and here's the distinction) unnecessary, that is, in the perspective of the organism, then survival would be a problem. Again, this issue is one of individual perception, and of goals and interests. If you were asked to put your hand over an open flame for no reason that you would recognize as a reason, then you most likely wouldn't. But if you had a reason for so doing (to win money, to win an argument that you cared deeply about, etc.), then you might think it worth the pain.

Pete Glickenhaus  Monday, June 04, 2007 1:00 am This move from "necessary" per se to "what is perceived to be necessary" allows one to grapple with kdny's example of a worldview which requires the suffering of Jews or other sentient beings. But what Touchstone is talking about is biological necessity, the necessity to have an aversion to pain for survival--and this is undisputed. Even Christians without a Darwinian framework will say that God gave us nerves to assist us with survival. Of course, in some frameworks, the necessity of Jews suffering might be lumped into this divine design, too. I think there is some misunderstanding here about Touchstone's position. There seems to be an assumption that a Christian cannot hold to a Darwinian framework and still be a faithful Christian. This is an unfortunate assumption, for there have been and are many Christians who embody the fruits of the spirit and yet believe in evolution (J. G. Machen is one example). There is no point in debating the issue with Iranians about the issue of the Jews. The best thing to do would be to do whatever we can to curtail their ability to extirpate the Jewish people, and hope that educational reforms somehow pervade that country's young, so that this will not continue. There's no reasoning with a person who wants to kill you. I already know what's coming from you, kdny: "But why should anyone care about the Jews?" And this question I've already answered above.

Pete Glickenhaus  Monday, June 04, 2007 1:18 am **To Steve W.** Language is what we make of it, of how we use it. I am using "altruism" in the commonly understood sense: generally speaking, I would take these to be a willingness to put oneself in harm's way on behalf of another. I think there is some misunderstanding about what I take to be arbitrary, etc. When I use that language, I mean that things are the way they are because of the contingencies of history, because of blind chance let us say, and not divine providence. Thus, the world is the way it is not because of some providential oversight (e.g., I think that Christianity has had the success it has not because of some divine assistance, but for the same reason that Buddhism and Islam have pervaded the world). However, we are born into a world already in momentum; we internalise certain customs, (a) linguistic framework(s), habits of thought, a certain cultural morality, etc. These tend to be rather stable, although they are in constant flux, even though this flux is tempered by the stabilizing effects of interaction. But I believe there to be an inherent subjectivity in things, too. Each individual, as I see it, has a unique perspective into the world that cannot be shared to some degree. Even though there is a certain commonality established through interaction, there remains our own personal experiences, etc. that make us who we are, and color the way we view the world.

Pete Glickenhaus  Monday, June 04, 2007 1:33 am ** To Steve (cont.) ** I am not asking anyone to marvel at selfless actions of altruism and heroism. My point is that these sorts of behavior are not found only in god-fearing people, but in atheists as well, and, beyond them, in other primates and other species, too. My point was saying that what is commonly understood to be virtuous and thus evidence of the Moral Law of God inhabiting us can also be found in other types of creatures, too. Christians explain the so-called morality of people by referring to the Imago Dei, but when it comes to other species, they change they explanatory framework. I don't see any reason to do this. A Darwinian framework is valuable to me because it allows me to see a continuity in the living world, rather than (a rather arbitrary) distinction between humans and other species. You will say, "But if it's arbitrary, why do you care if I'm a Darwinian or not?" and I will answer, "I don't care!" I have no desire to police the minds of people, or to make everyone dot their I's and cross their T's the way I do. You are free, if you wish, to think humanity is something uniquely special. I don't see any reason to think that. There are many different ways to carve up the world, many different ways to picture it.

Pete Glickenhaus  Monday, June 04, 2007 1:48 am ** To Steve (Cont.) ** I believe no one way suggests itself as more inevitable or necessary than any other. I don't see any reason to think that the tiger (or anything else) perceives the world in a "lesser" way than I do. And I think that it's hubris to think that humanity sees the world "as it really is"--that our perspective as a species is a privileged perspective. It's a small step, I think, from killing animals because we think they taste good, for products that we use, or because they get in our way, etc. to viewing other humans in that way. I like a Darwinian framework because I think it allows us to construct the most comprehensible narrative of the natural evidence that's available to us thus far, not to mention that it provides the framework from which much of modern scientific knowledge depends, knowledge that we all benefit from on a daily basis. Do I think that Darwinism is the only way to view the world? Not at all. Could the naturalistic paradigm leave out something key, something that might help make things fit together more comprehensibly? Maybe. I don't happen to think ID or any Christian paradigm even comes close, but I don't anyone stupid for adhering to it. I simply say that your interests are different from my own, that you prefer a different narrative or vocabulary for your view of the world than I do.

Pete Glickenhaus  Monday, June 04, 2007 1:59 am ** To Steve (Cont.) ** Some Christians like to explain human behavior by suggesting a natural Law that comes with the Imago Dei, a Law that is revealed in the very fabric of the universe, since the universe (according to Paul, at least) self-evidently reveals some basic attributes of God, which makes everyone without excuse. The philosophical structure against this view was given by Hume, but it was given legs by Darwin, who provided a very plausible narrative that links geological, cosmological, fossil and genetic evidence together in a quite consistent way--a way that has not met with serious problems, but has rather proven quite successful. The problem with Darwin is that he gives an alternative to Paul, an alternative that, if it doesn't convince everybody, at least refutes Paul in that it shows that the universe does not self-evidently declare anything about God. After Saussure and Kuhn, it became possible to think that it did not declare anything in particular at all, that there is not a language that the universe speaks that we can identify. Rather, the universe simply is, and we carve it up and understand it in a variety of (arbitrary) ways through our language and experiences.

Pete Glickenhaus  Monday, June 04, 2007 2:06 am ** To Steve (cont.) ** The humanity has a tendency to privilege itself over other animals because it thinks that, because it has a developed language and "reasoning capability," that it is somehow ontologically better than the rest of things. For all we know, the bonobos think they're the coolest things around, and think that they've somehow become captive to us, whom they take to be idiots. Who knows? I can also imagine another civilization coming into contact with us, who thinks we're quite tasty, and think us to be horribly stupid creatures. What would we say then? This is simply hypothetical imaginings, but that is my point. The ability to imagine, to be creative and wonder, is a wonderful ability that we have, and I see no reason to silence anyone's right to imagine the world in the way they desire, provided, of course, that this does not conflict with the imaginings of others or their survival.

Pete Glickenhaus  Monday, June 04, 2007 2:15 am ** (Cont.) ** Again, I can already hear the question: "But why do you care about that?" First, I don't see why I need to give a justification of myself to anyone of why I prefer what I do. Second, if we all were to ask this question about all our preferences (why certain things resonate with us and others don't), we'd all have to shrug our shoulders at some point. Third, if a robust morality requires deep reasonings, then I think most of the world has no reason to be moral. Most people don't have the time or ability to theologize or philosophize about morality. Fourth, and here is my point again about primates, I don't see why behavior that we would call "selfless" (or whatever) should have one explanation for us, and another one for other animals, who display all the hallmarks of tenderness, generosity, cooperation, love, kindness, selflessness, etc. that can be found in humans. I think it is to insult them to explain their behavior in one way and ours in another. I hope this series of paragraphs has provided something of an explanation. I can elaborate more if you wish. Thanks for talking so far, Steve!

Pete Glickenhaus  Monday, June 04, 2007 3:08 am Forgive yet another post, but I another example of what I'm talking about with regard to ethics and reasons. I tell my wife that I love her, and sometimes she asks why. I am baffled by this. In the past, I tried to list all the ways that endear her to me. Physical traits, emotional ones, relational ones, experiential ones, etc. I think her question is not really appropriate, because this doesn't really answer her question. All of these things explanations don't add up to the whole that I feel for her. Even so, however, my response to her (to list a bunch of things), simply moves the question back. Why do I appreciate these things? Why do I love her mannerisms, her looks, her wit; why do the particular experiences with her resonate with me the way they do? I think there are explanations, to be sure--naturalistic ones that would take all the mystery out of things. But naturalistic explanations can never capture the fullness of my existential experiences of these things. I see my valuation of animals and other people in the same way. I feel for suffering people, people without a voice, and animals, etc., and to ask why, as if my valuation of them stems from a set of abstract principles, is not the way I operate. I don't love my wife because I'm told I have to. I do because of reasons that words and reasons cannot capture. I hope this makes sense.

Gianni  Monday, June 04, 2007 3:25 am Pete, you wrote: "I think . . . (7210 words follow) . . . I can elaborate more if you wish." No, I believe you made yourself clear. You mean "blip", right?

Steven Williamson  Monday, June 04, 2007 3:44 am Pete- Good morning once again! You wrote===I see no reason to silence anyone's right to imagine the world in the way they desire, provided, of course, that this does not conflict with the imaginings of others or their survival.=== And above that you wrote==== There is no point in debating the issue with Iranians about the issue of the Jews. The best thing to do would be to do whatever we can to curtail their ability to extirpate the Jewish people, and hope that educational reforms somehow pervade that country's young, so that this will not continue.==== So you would stop someones imaginigs and stop the iranians and reeducate them because of an arbitrary preferenc of yours that, if enough people in our society agree with you, you have the might to impose? What is the difference between the Iranians wanting to kill the Jews and you wanting to stop them? They prefer (arbitrarily) killing jews, you (arbitrariyl) prefer not. In all situations it is a question of the might to carry out one's preferences.

Steven Williamson  Monday, June 04, 2007 3:46 am Sorry about all the spelling errors above. I should try one thing at a time.

Steven Williamson  Monday, June 04, 2007 4:05 am And this really is the issue for me regarding your "moral" position. There is no "ought" in your world, only "is". There is my preference and your preference. There is no reason to change my preference. There is no reason to prefer one thing over another. There is no reason to judge one preference "better" than another. There exists only my preference and ability or inablilty to carry it out and impose it on others. I am not saying here that you do not make choices that I would consider good. I am saying here that you can provide no guidance to others in their choices other than, "this is what I prefer". You can point to the avoidance of pain in other animals as a reason to make your moral choice, but you said that suffering does not matter other than it matters to You and that your perspective is arbitrary. So how are you going to educate the Iranaians? The pain of the jews should matter to them because it matters to you? You can give no reason why your view of pain and suffering in others as "not prefered" is better than prefering the pain and suffering of others.

Pete Glickenhaus  Monday, June 04, 2007 4:05 am I would say that might is what would matter, either way--whether one defines "might" as technological ability, physical prowess, or the ability to persuade someone through various means. It is one's might that would make all the practical difference, which is the only difference worth speaking of, in my view. One doesn't argue with a tiger in pursuit of you, saying "But it's wrong to kill!" No, you establish whatever measures you can to protect yourself, to make the tiger's desires unrealizable. If you can, it would be wise at that point to attempt to domesticate the tigers in a way that keeps your community out of harm's way, to "teach" them to live according to ways that you would like. It doesn't matter whether what the tiger wants is right or wrong. What matters is that it behaves in such a way as to not conflict with your desires (one of which is to not be eaten!). I don't believe things "catch on" because people suddenly realize a metaphysical Truth, just as I don't think science "works" because it somehow taps into the way things are in themselves. Rather, I believe that things catch on (or that science works) because they are "mighty" in satisfying common needs, interests, desires or projects. One common interest is the desire not to be killed.

Steven Williamson  Monday, June 04, 2007 4:22 am Yes, the desire not to be killed. That doesn't say anything about not killing. In your system there is no reason for me not to kill if I have the power to do so and it suits me. And here is the differnce between people and animals. Many ARE moved by metaphysical truths. There are many things that I prefer that my metaphysical truth tells me I should not. I work to bring my preferences in line with this, as do many people in the congregation of which I am apart.

Pete Glickenhaus  Monday, June 04, 2007 4:25 am I wouldn't describe my wordview that way. I would say not that there are only "Is" scenarios in my world, but actually a countless multitude of "Oughts." Fundamental for me is the "Ought"--by which I mean a pattern of living that accords with certain desires that I have. I disagree that there are no reasons or ways to judge whether something is "better" than another. When our interests converge, they can become stabilized as something objectively "better," since between us there is no dispute. A standard is created. I wouldn't say it exists before we agree upon it. That is where we will part ways. I think standards of morality are created, not found. You don't want to be killed. I don't either. So we make an agreement that preserves both of our interests. But it's more than just that. Families grow, and those are allegiances. People develop strong friendships and trade-agreements with one another, and soon whole networks of relationships are established. I can provide guidance to others by convincing them how their interests can be met by not infringing upon my interests. "Don't hurt me, or else there will be repercussions for you that you don't want. Let's just save each other the trouble and drama, shall we?" If I can convince someone that their interests are best met by allowing room for my interests, then there's no problem. If I can't convince a person of this, I submit that no metaphysical argument is going to solve anything, either.

Pete Glickenhaus  Monday, June 04, 2007 4:35 am The reason, of course, is that there's no way to adjudicate between metaphysical claims. Who's to say what God says? Everyone makes contrary claims, none of which can be verified universally. In the OT, God supposedly commanded the Jews to slaughter entire communities of people in holy genocides. Terrorists can say the same thing today, and there's no way to defend against these claims except by saying "No. You didn't hear the voice of God." Other than that, all you can do is take the necessary measure to protect yourself. By the way, the same reasons why someone might say that Islamic radicals don't hear the voice of God can be equally said to the Jews of antiquity. Metaphysical debates get us nowhere, I submit. There's no way to settle the debates, except by convincing everyone of the same metaphsyical truth (which is what Christianity hope to do by converting the world). I think this goal is unattainable, and would prefer to skip the metaphysical disputes and focus on interests. For, even if Christianity somehow achieves total hegemony, there's no guarantee that Christianity is no better than any other mythical religious system. To believe something to be True does not make it so.

Steven Williamson  Monday, June 04, 2007 4:35 am So if there is no negative effect on my preferences, killing, rape, theft is all morally o.k. This provides me with no reason to restrain these behaviors but only a reason to increase my ability to carry them out with no consequences to myself. And since no metaphyiscal arguement will have any effect, people will do as much "evil" as they have the power to accomplish.

Pete Glickenhaus  Monday, June 04, 2007 4:37 am (my apologies for using a double-negative: "no guarantee that Christianity is NO better... [should say: ANY better])

Steven Williamson  Monday, June 04, 2007 4:40 am The arguement of which religion is correct is another matter entirely. I do not think that all religions have the same amount of evidence for there metaphysical assertions, but that is a debate for another time.

Chris Comis  Monday, June 04, 2007 4:41 am Sir Pete, I didn't get to read *all* of your posts, but the ones I dabbled in were sufficient to remind me that atheism presupposes Trinitarian Theistic Christendom. Here is my argument for Trinitarian Theistic Christendom. Otherwise known as, "The Atheistic Argument for God's Existence.": If no God, then no Atheism. There is Atheism / .: God Good ol' Modus Tollens (p --> q, ~q / .: ~p). To futher add injury to insult, Atheism/Anti-theism is *also* the result of apostate Christendom. Which, by the way, would be further injury and insult on us Christians; rather than on the apostates themselves. They are under their own judgement; but they *are* our judgement.

Steven Williamson  Monday, June 04, 2007 4:41 am Look at my last post (or any of them). You have nothing to apologize for.

Pete Glickenhaus  Monday, June 04, 2007 4:42 am I have to go soon, but I will say that your argument seems to imply that, if a person has metaphysically moral beliefs, that this alone will deter them from killing, thievery, raping, etc. But this is obviously not the case. People choose to act in ways that they would say they believe is wrong.**Also, if killing, rape, and theft leave you open to retaliation, jail-time, and in some cases more severe penalties, I'd say that it's in your own interest to refrain! Of course, if you don't get caught, you will get away with it, won't you? And if you are at this point, what metaphysical beliefs will hinder you anyway? Many people choose to live in the moment, fully aware that at some point things will catch up with them--whether this be God, disease, the police, or whatever.

Steven Williamson  Monday, June 04, 2007 4:43 am Good discussion Pete. I have to run, I'll check back in later.

Pete Glickenhaus  Monday, June 04, 2007 4:45 am **To Chris** You need to dabble a little more deeply in my posts before characterizing me as a metaphysical naturalist or atheist. I have no metaphysics to speak of. I am not a Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, or Richard Dawkins (or Hitchens). I have as many problems with them as you do, but for different reasons.

Steven Williamson  Monday, June 04, 2007 5:04 am Pete- I am not saying that everyone is restrained by metaphysical truths. I am saying that many people are. I am also saying that metaphysical truths give people a reason to do the right thing when they will not get caught, while your system does not. Your system cannot even define anything as bad outside of getting caught. My system can say to mass murderers stallin, pol pot, et. all, this is wrong and should not be done. Your system cannot even say it is wrong since they will face no consequences. You may say that my system fails to restrain them since they will do it anyway, I will say that it restrained many who did not do such things but had the power to do so. Your system cannot give them a reason not to do all the evil they are capable of since it defines evil as what you are not capable of (that which you will face consequences for).

Steven Williamson  Monday, June 04, 2007 5:05 am Now I really have to go.

Steven Williamson  Monday, June 04, 2007 6:43 am Back. Pete- In your world there appears to be no difference between your desire to see Jews not go through suffering because of your compassion and a Jihadi's desire to see them destroyed because of his hatred (to use an example of current conflict). These are both personal preferences and there exists no way to judge between them if they do not affect my prefernces. Similarly, there is no difference between the Jew's preference to be alive and the Jihadi's preference to kill him. My preference is for me to be alive, so what? It has no claim against anothers desire to see me dead. In your system the weak are screwed and there is nothing wrong with that--no reason for me to care or get involved so long as it doesn't affect me. I also don't believe there is really any "ougt" in your system, only more preferences. My preference is to have a law that protects my preferences. There is no "ought" in what my preferences should be. people risk their lives to save me. My preferences cannot be advanced when I am dead so there can be no use in risking death, ever. A hazy possiblity of future danger is not a better bet than real danger now.

Steven Williamson  Monday, June 04, 2007 6:46 am continued== The above post is a little messed up at the bottom. ==Why should I jump into a river to save a drowning man? It doesn't advance my preferences. Even If I prefer a society where people jumped in to save drowning men, my preference for that would have no claim on anyone else and would give them no reason to reciprocate. If my desire is not to drown my best bet would be to stay out of rivers rather than take a chance on risking my life trying to create a society where people risk their lives to save me. My preferences cannot be advanced when I am dead so there can be no use in risking death, ever. A hazy possiblity of future danger is not a better bet than real danger now.

Pete Glickenhaus  Monday, June 04, 2007 8:08 am I would say that people don't generally have metaphysical considerations in their day to day lives. And I wouldn't say that my way of looking at things can't define bad. I am saying that "bad" is determined by a community, that it is made and not found. Think of primates again. Murder is not a metaphysical evil for them, but is determined by social forces that have been forged over time. I don't see any reason why this cannot apply to human communities as well. Morality, I take it, means something only within human community. Because I am atheistic, I don't believe that "good" or "bad" would exist if there weren't humans around. Thus, I can say here and now that murder is wrong, because we, as a community of people, affirm it to be so. It is not in dispute, and so is a settled issue, although I would not say it is metaphysical. And there are consequences for those who violate the established norms: jail, social disrepute, fines, etc. Thus, I think my system gives all the reasons that will ultimately matter.

Pete Glickenhaus  Monday, June 04, 2007 8:17 am **Cont.** In my world there is a difference between my desire and the terrorist's. A lot of the world agrees with me, if not most of it. The weak are in trouble in any system, and there *are* reasons to get involved. I am extremely interested in assisting the poor, disenfranchised and suffering, because I sympathize with them. What else is needed? I don't think there is a metaphysical "ought" when it comes to saving a drowning person, but I think that a little sympathy is enough--imaginative sympathy that wonders whose father or husband or brother or son, etc. he is, about what it might mean *for him* to still continue on. I cannot do anything if you do not sympathy for another, except perhaps try to get you to feel for him in some way--the same way that I wish people would feel for animals, and thus stop unnecessarily killing them.

Pete Glickenhaus  Monday, June 04, 2007 8:29 am ** Cont. ** Again, I will bring up the primates. My examples of them and other animals are constantly overlooked in silence, but they are powerful counter-examples to a morality that supposedly requires metaphysics. Primates have laws, mores and customs of behaving in tribes and other group formations. Altruism and heroism occur, selfless acts of sacrifice for the well-being of the community, of a loved one, etc. Does a mother of any species need metaphysical reasons to love her children, her brothers, her parents, her sisters, her extended family, her close friends? This is already the beginning of a community. These family members themselves have another web of family and friend connections, and thus the web of concern extends further. Soon, people are wondering what separates their closest relatives from people they don't even know, except for the contingencies of life, things they can't control. They *could* be the mother, sister, or daughter of that drowning man, they realize. Or perhaps one is just so infected with a love for life, and revolts at the prospect of death--any death. And thus they work to better the lives of themselves and others around them, even those for whom will never thank them (like animals). Why? Because it makes them feel good to do good, and why not?

Steven Williamson  Monday, June 04, 2007 8:49 am Pete-good to hear from you. It seems like we are starting to go round and round. Why should I do something the community likes or dislikes apart from the consequences they impose? You said suffering means nothing other than it means somehting to you. Great. To others it simply means nothing. Moving this to the social realm only moves the problem another step. If good and bad are defined by societies, then they can never be wrong. They can never get better or worse. To say this is to judge it by som e standard other than the society. Again my point with sympathy is so what? You feel sympathy which you cannot define as being better than hate. You simply prefer it. As far as the primates go, saying they do altrusitic things under your definition is to say they act on a preference which makes no sense in your world.

Steven Williamson  Monday, June 04, 2007 8:50 am Pete- I am glad to see that you are happily married. Your wife's question to you is a good one considering your world view. Why do you love her? She happens to be what you happen to prefer. If she were other than she is (I am sure she's great), it would be no better or worse other than it might not be what you prefer. I love you = you match my arbitrary preferences- *yawn* It is the same problem with your use of heroism and altruism. You are celebrating something that is a random preference and has no value over barbarism and viloence other than you prefer it. In your view altruism is perhaps the poorest of actions. At least selfishness has a reason. There is absolutely no reason to risk anything for anyone else if all choices are merely prefernces.

Steven Williamson  Monday, June 04, 2007 9:08 am societies are more than just groups of equals. Some in societies have power and some don't. Why should those with power care about the preferences of others? This is the point with stallin and pol pot and others. They had the power and used in their preferences and in your world view you cannot say this is wrong.

Pete Glickenhaus  Monday, June 04, 2007 11:47 am I understanding where you are coming from, and all I can say is that I disagree. And I am okay with that. You are right; we are going in circles. This is because we disagree on such fundamental issues that it's nearly impossible for us to find agreement. Our vocabularies, as they say, are incommensurable. You will say one thing; I will say another. I believe this is an inevitability. But I'm not bothered by this, because all of this is so abstract as not to make enough of a difference in most of life's dealings anyway. I will continue to help the poor, support the disenfranchised, refuse to treat animals as if they are here for our consumption, fight for the lives of sentient beings as much and often as I am able. If you don't agree that one can be an altruistic individual without metaphysics, then what am I to do? I'm certainly not going to worry, because I know from personal experience that one can. If you don't see it, then you don't see it.

Pete Glickenhaus  Monday, June 04, 2007 12:00 pm "I understanding"? Ugh. I am so embarrassed. :/

Steven Williamson  Monday, June 04, 2007 2:17 pm Pete- thanks for your time in this discussion. I want to make clear that I believe you do act charitably towards others as I would. I simply think under your system your choice is not rational, but arbitrary and therefore society would have a hard time running on this system. I beleive that you love your wife because she has qualities that are objectively good, that when you act altruisticly towards others it is objectively good because it reflects the character of God himself. I am glad for the discussions we have here and pray for the good of you and your family. God bless.

John Barry  Tuesday, June 05, 2007 5:57 am Pete, You say, "Again, I will bring up the primates. My examples of them and other animals are constantly overlooked in silence, but they are powerful counter-examples to a morality that supposedly requires metaphysics." You represent primates as "loving" one another. What is this "love", and how do you know that primates "love" at all? Morality doesn't require "metaphysics". I would say it requires a being who has knowledge of an obligation and the capacity to will in accordance with that obligation.

Gianni  Tuesday, June 05, 2007 5:59 am Pete, I understand how you are impressed by "moral behavior" in animals. And you think that if primates don't need to give a rationale for their ethics, then why should we? But you are highly selective in your choice of animal behavior. Before you observe that animals don't need metaphysics to justify their morality, you have already assumed that a certain act is moral. You hesitate to call it moral, because you know the word is loaded. But you clearly choose your examples on the assumption that some acts are more decent than others.

Gianni  Tuesday, June 05, 2007 5:59 am You have no room or time for the Triune God in your system, but then you spy what the Triune God declares to be moral. Then you pick and choose. You throw away whatever offends the sensibilities of certain mammals living in A.D. 2007. You keep the rest. Then you point to primates and say, they also do that. You think you are done. You think you have the best of all worlds. You have an ethics in rough agreement with some Christian concerns, which you think is enough for them to consider you a respectable, decent guy, and leave you alone. A scientific basis (all rise), as seen in your use of the word "primates". Little trouble with most sensibilities of most democrat-voting, shoes-wearing mammals, at least for this week. No need to provide critics any answer to justify your system beyond inviting them to the zoo. And if the sensibilities of the majority of these mammals change next week, no big deal, that's more or less what we should expect (provided they don’t steer toward the right). As Groucho Marx said, I am a man of principles. And if you don't like my principles, well, I have others.

Gianni  Tuesday, June 05, 2007 5:59 am But your selectivity in choosing examples of animal behavior gives away the game. First, whatever moral behavior you may find in animals, quite obviously, is not problematic at all for the Christian, so it's not like a monkey caring for her young is inconsistent with the existence of a caring Creator. This means that it is not by observing primates that you came to the conclusion that the Triune God does not exist. Secondly, (and I try to stick to family-friendly examples) a lioness cares for her young by hunting zebras. Spiders by setting deadly traps for insects. Bears like vegetables, but they also like creatures with an advanced nervous system, and who can bleed to death. A bear does not need a justification for his behavior, so why should Stalin?

Gianni  Tuesday, June 05, 2007 5:59 am Maybe because of the ethical standard agreed upon by mankind at large 10,072 years after the latest ice age (if you buy that)? But what obligation does Stalin have for submitting to that standard? If you can point to primates and ask, "They don't need metaphysics to justify their morality, so why should I?", why can't Stalin point to bears and ask the same question? It may be that Stalin's behavior is evolutionary disadvantageous for his lineage in the long run, but why should he care for what will happen to his offspring 100,000 years from now? What obligation does he have toward that generation? T-Rexes must have done something wrong since they are not around anymore, but why should any single T-Rex have done anything any different when he roamed the earth? In fact, who says that Stalin's behavior will not prove ultimately advantageous for his evolutionary lineage? Who says that the present ethical consensus (assuming there is such a thing) is not just a short-lived fluke in the overall story of our species?

Gianni  Tuesday, June 05, 2007 6:00 am Indeed, who can be so arrogant or obtuse as to think that whatever we believe this month or this millennium is anything more than a fluke? Billions and billions of years, right? Nobody is more lacking in historical perspective than atheist ethicists. Aggressive carnivorous behavior has worked fine for sharks and vultures, indeed, even for cats for quite a while, so who says it's not a workable option for us? Ants have dealt in slavery for a long time, so what's so shocking about Deuteronomy? At the very least, can’t we agree that it must have sounded like a good idea at the time? And who are you to say time is not ripe for giving it another try? Our species is still young, right? Do you know what direction it will take? Who would have guessed iguanodons reinvented themselves as condors, if you buy that one as well? And why not? Why are certain personal preferences out of the question, and why especially those that have something to do with Mount Zion? How come your personal ethical preferences, at the end of the day, when all is said and done, are undistinguishable from the leftist agenda of this month?

Gianni  Tuesday, June 05, 2007 6:00 am And if we should take seriously current developments, then a conservative president won two elections in a row -- doesn't that mean evolution is currently pushing to the right? Why are you opposed to that trend? You don't see the Christian system as triumphing in the future, but what if "evolution is going to favor a sense of ourght-ness within communities that will foster Christianity as the best cooperation and altruism within its species-borders?" Yes, you are not arguing against Christianity as such, only "the very unsympathetic attitude that cannot seem to grant that the problems of morality somehow plague other systems of belief that do not plague Christianity, and that Christianity alone is able to offer the world something positive and moral." But why can't this unsympathetic attitude be mankind's secret for its coming evolutionary success? What's wrong with being unsympathetic? Your position is sharply opposed to the Christian faith, but even when I take it seriously I fail to see why it should be. Given evolution, why aren't you an evolutionary Christian? As Douglas Wilson would say, you are like a man who refuses to swim to the other end of the pool because he would become wet.

Gianni  Tuesday, June 05, 2007 6:00 am You will say, "All right, I don't care about these things, I am sorry if Stalin feels that way, all I know is that I don't like the ethics of the Bible, there is no Triune God, and I want to live my life in my way." Go ahead, Pete, but don't imagine that your position deserves any intellectual respect or marks you off as a decent fellow who is somehow excused if it turns out that God is there after all. You fail to give your Creator thanks, and the honor that is due to Him. You have grieviously sinned against Him. You will have to answer to Him for all that, one day. That day is approaching fast. No second chance. You are literally wasting your life, your only life, Pete. Tough. but as you know, there's a solution.

Pete Glickenhaus  Wednesday, June 06, 2007 4:14 am Gianni--I have never said that the Triune God does not exist. But neither do I say that they ("they" *is* more appropriate) exist, either. And I've never said that my position lacks intellectual respect or marks me off as a decent fellow or whatever. If you read my postings carefully, you will discover that I eschew the notions of "intellectual respect" as well as "decent"--except in an intra-relational sense. If you uphold the same (or enough) presuppositions that I do, then we will have a sort of self-affirming respect for one another. If we don't (as it is the case here), then I don't expect any respect from you. In fact, I don't what *what* you think of me, as long as your behaviors don't limit my own preferences (which they mostly do not).

Pete Glickenhaus  Wednesday, June 06, 2007 4:25 am If God exists, and my judgment is in his hands, all I can say is that I hope this God is not such a megalomaniac so as to determine my fate by the contents of my abstract thoughts, which I admit may or may not be correct, but they are mine, my own perspective, and that's what I've got, and that's what I offer. I hope, rather, that the Matt 25 judgment fits the picture better, wherein the question of who is a sheep or a goat is settle by the trajectory of one's acts of imaginative sympathy for others. It will turn out, then, I hope, that I will be found to be an sheep incognito. If not, I will shrug my shoulders (or whatever remains of me then), and say: "Well, it's all predestined anyway, is it not? I was just doing what I could, as a child of Adam. Apparently, I wasn't chosen, and given the grace to believe. Otherwise, things'd be different." What I am to do anyway? If the sovereign God so chooses, I will come (Jn. 6:37,44). If not, I cannot (Jn. 6:65). Ultimately, the majority of humanity in hell forever is not our fault. We didn't ask to be born in such a hopeless and helpless condition. It's God's fault, since he could've seen to it that things were otherwise. I'm not saying that this negates a person's will; only that even the free actions of humans have their impulses from divine providence.

Pete Glickenhaus  Wednesday, June 06, 2007 4:36 am Believe me, if I found the Bible to square with my understanding of the world (which is determined by my experience), then I would still be a Christian. But my studies have shown me how insufficient the Christian narrative is for my needs. I don't eschew all of it. In fact I like a lot of it. There is a lot I don't like, too. But I use what I like and discard the rest. You do the same thing, but work from within, and use interpretive stategies to discard what you don't like in ways that are acceptable within the Christian community you inhabit. But that's what everyone does, I think, so it's nothing to be ashamed of. I just so happens that I think Paul, Peter, John, Jesus and others are insufficient on a lot of things, or are just plain wrong. It's nothing personal. It's just that what they're saying doesn't jive with my experiences. And what, then, am I to do? All I have are my individual experiences, mediated by language, my culture and my own idiosyncratic interests. All I have is one tiny little window into the world, and I'm doing the best I've got with it. If you think I'm wrong, I'm not offended. I agree that my window is tiny, and that I see through it darkly. I'm doing what I can, though.

Pete Glickenhaus  Wednesday, June 06, 2007 4:38 am You might think your perspective reflects the ways things actually are in themselves, but I don't have that much faith in my perspective or ability to adjudicate things, or in any other human's. I won't pretend that I have arrive at "truth" or am evening coming closer to it, because one has to know how to ascertain what "truth" is in order to look for it, and, if one already knows that, then one already has what one's looking for. I cannot tell what the difference is between "It works because it's true," and "It's true because it works," nor how anyone could distinguish them definitively. So, I've given up that hope, and instead look for things that work for me, that help me make sense of things as I see them dimly through my window.

Pete Glickenhaus  Wednesday, June 06, 2007 5:12 am You say that I borrow stuff from the Christian worldview. Of course I do! So does everyone! We all borrow. Jesus, Peter, Paul et al borrowed from their contemporaries and predecessors. The luminaries of the OT borrowed from their ANE contemporaries and fathers, and they borrowed from theirs, who borrowed from theirs, etc. etc. ** I have no idea what direction evolution will take us, and how Christianity will play into this history. Perhaps Christianity will achieve absolute dominance, but it may not. I'm guessing that it won't. And I agree that appeals to absolute truth can be a very persuasive and powerful rhetorical device to win a debate. But that is not how I operate. I don't feel like I'm being genuine to my picture of the world when I claim universals, truth, etc. Also, I would say that there *is* nothing metaphysically wrong in my view with being sympathetic. I just happen to value sympathy. Again, I don't taken there to be metaphysical anything. Thus, when I talk about "wrong" and "right", I'm always talking about these terms in relation (Habermas might say something like a "philosophy of intersubjectivity").

Pete Glickenhaus  Wednesday, June 06, 2007 5:17 am The reason I don't value the prescription/proscriptions of the OT is that I value the friendships and well-being of many people who would fall under the judgment of these penalties. Whether homosexuality "deserves" death is something for a community to decide. Again, I don't believe there is an absolute standard that can determine what an action "deserves" or not. I know people--Christian people, in fact--who identify themselves as homosexuals, or who have committed adultery. I also know some people who practice wicca, or at least have dabbled in it, but use such things not for the harm of others, but personal empowerment and improvement of themselves. I don't desire to see these people killed. They are connected to families, people who depend upon them, etc. and I just don't think shedding their blood is something that's worth the trouble, or the pain. Most of everyone else in the West agree with me, even if they don't personally think these actions right.

Pete Glickenhaus  Wednesday, June 06, 2007 5:21 am I don't say whether it's "right" to give such things another try. I don't prefer them, and will do what I can to outmaneuver those who do (the Theonomists, e.g.). ** Although I wouldn't put it the way you did ("decent"), of course I value certain ways of living over others! Of *course* I have preferences. Of *course* I'd rather live in certain ways, and see you live in certain ways (ways, ultimately, that don't conflict with my own preferences--other than that, I wouldn't care).

Pete Glickenhaus  Wednesday, June 06, 2007 5:29 am Gianni--you clearly haven't read my posts closely enough, because I already answered most of what you've objected to. Perhaps that just means you're not buying what I'm selling, and that's fine. Incommensurable vocabularies, I would say. I have already said that Stalin's behavior is no different to me than a bear's. There's no reasoning with a bear, and there's no reasoning with a person such as Stalin. The only thing someone can do with someone like Stalin or a bear is to take away their claws, de-fang them, or whatever other measures you must take to protect yourself and the ones you love (who will also have their own communities and webs of concern, thus making the protective community grow and grow). Again, your objections have already been met with answers, answers that you will no doubt think insufficient. We just don't share the same standards of sufficiency. These a priori commitments don't admit of argument, and so let us agree to disagree.

Jim White  Wednesday, June 06, 2007 6:09 am I have got to say this conversation you two have been having looks utterly ridiculous to me. I have never really understood why the bible is a tool for argument more so than a book like Cat's Cradle. It astounds me how unwilling people are to recognize others views as valid. Gianni wouldn't have a problem with just Pete he would have a problem with anyone who isn't a Christian (the suggestion of evolutionary Christianity pssh). He would have the same problem with a Buddhist or a Muslim as he would with an agnostic or an atheist. That they don't hold on to his beliefs as strongly as he does, and although you may claim a nontheistic position deserves no intellectual respect, neither does a position where the arguer says he is right because his favorite holy book says he is right.

Pete Glickenhaus  Wednesday, June 06, 2007 6:27 am I agree entirely. This conversation is utterly ridiculous. I have been participating in it thus far, though, for the same reasons you have felt the need to post something. By the way, Jim, I think you and I would find much to agree on, judging from your comment(s).

Pete Glickenhaus  Wednesday, June 06, 2007 6:37 am Actually, maybe not utterly ridiculous. Maybe just inevitable. Yes, inevitable. I like that better. But, if it seems ridiculous to you, then well and good. It is like cake tasting good or bad to a taster. I think we would agree here, though, would we not? I take you to be utterly postmodern, and you sound almost Rortian.

Gianni  Thursday, June 07, 2007 8:41 am Pete, stay utterly tuned.

Gianni  Thursday, June 07, 2007 9:34 pm And Jim, since you like reading ridiculous stuff, sit down with Pete and join him in staying utterly tuned for more. Been busy, but I'm coming back if you give me a few hours.

Pete Glickenhaus  Friday, June 08, 2007 2:01 am Let me make a prediction of how this conversation will go, of what Gianni will say even before he says it. He will make universal claims about how things really are, about self-evident and undeniable truths that every human knows deep-down, and that is somehow written into the cosmos; he will attempt to show how my viewpoint is contradictory and cannot definitively provide a foundation for a functioning society or even person; he will try to show how my position seems to give no one any reason to be kind; that the hope for any society and the future of humanity depend, ultimately, on universal truth claims, specifically those of Christianity. I will disagree with all of this, and say that I am uncomfortable with the notion of truth, objective morality, universals, and the idea that anyone can somehow rise above history and get a perspective on things as they really are, etc; that I am entirely unashamed of my finitude as an individual, and that I cannot seem to understand things otherwise. Thus, anyone who agrees with my presuppositions will find what I have to say to resonate with them, and conversely for those who assume the same things Gianni does. Incommensurability.

Pete Glickenhaus  Friday, June 08, 2007 2:15 am The reason our positions are incommensurable is that, at some point, there is cannot be any justification (other than an existential and personal one) for why certain presuppositions are held and not others. "Why do you take your the Bible to be an authority?" is a good example. Because it resonates with the individual as something worth living and dying for, and it bound to the meaningful disocurse of the Christian tradition, which has its own appeal. I am quite versed in the Bible, the tradition of the church, etc., but I don't see any reason to think it something distinctive and unique, something ahistorically or universally true, etc. I just do not have eyes to see what others see, not anymore at least. Christians explain this as not having the regenerating grace of the spirit, etc., that without the divine assistance, no one can find the Christian message as anyone but foolish. I don't find it foolish, but I don't find it absolutely gripping, either. I prefer to describe the situation as having not to do with divine agency or not, but with factors that are historical, cultural, linguistic, social, and very very personal. Gianni might think he is winning the conversation. I don't understand even what that might mean, since it will appear differently according to the presuppositions that one has when approaching the conversation. My purpose here is to clear up misconceptions and keep in touch, not to win anything. That it besides the point for my purposes.

Pete Glickenhaus  Friday, June 08, 2007 2:30 am Incommensurability can be described as having faith in different things.

Pete Glickenhaus  Friday, June 08, 2007 2:52 am And asking a person to defend why they have faith in something is like asking why a person loves his or her spouse, or why someone likes chocolate, or why they cry when they hear "I Surrender All" but feel virtually nothing when they sing "Amazing Grace." At some point, giving a justification for these things other than "They simply resonate with me on a profound level that I cannot explain" cheapens them, makes them into something akin to picking out a certain brand of dishwasher over another, or relegates them to the status of showing your work for a math problem, or whatever. To go further with the analogy, it is like asking why one should solve for X to begin with, why solving the equation is worth the trouble. These sorts of questions, and the sort of universalizable justifications that their askers require from them are besides the point.

Pete Glickenhaus  Friday, June 08, 2007 2:58 am One might, in this vein, simply bring in Kierkegaard into this discussion to assist my purposes of bridging the conversation somewhat, of introducing a character that might speak in a language that might resonate with both of us, thus closing the gap of incommensurability a little. For I am like a Kierkegaard, but without the Christian framework. You are like a Kierkegaard (in the sense that you identify yourself as a Christian), but without his perspectivism.

Gianni  Friday, June 08, 2007 11:03 pm Pete, you wrote (in bold): “Gianni--I have never said that the Triune God does not exist.” Uh oh! That's right. You have been careful enough to limit your comments to remarkably restrained assertions like, “my mental hardware operates on explicitly atheistic...grounds”, “I have no idea what the term "God" might mean, nor what the term "exist" might mean when applied to "God"”, and “I don't particularly care if a person calls me...an atheist”. That's as far from saying “the Triune God does not exist” as one can possibly get, so good point. Because of course it would be wrong if I claimed you said things you didn't say, wouldn't it?

Gianni  Friday, June 08, 2007 11:03 pm “But neither do I say that they ("they" *is* more appropriate) exist, either." Another helpful clarification. Now, refusing to affirm the existence of the Triune God as you do breaks God's first commandment and defines you as an idolater, but we should also focus on the equally important fact that this kind of clarification is not going to be much of a help for you on Judgment Day. But my point is that it's important to clarify, and your latest postings are full of clarifications. Let's move one to the next one. “And I've never said that my position lacks intellectual respect or marks me off as a decent fellow or whatever.” True, and I’ve never said you said it. I like this game. Now it’s your turn to say, “I’ve never said you said I said it.” But of course I never said you said I said you said it.

Gianni  Friday, June 08, 2007 11:04 pm “If you read my postings carefully, you will discover that I eschew the notions of "intellectual respect" as well as "decent"--except in an intra-relational sense.” True again. I tried to read your postings again -- carefully this time -- and I did notice that you indeed eschew lots of things. Except eschewing the "notions of intellectual respect", that I haven't seen you doing much, what with all that huffing and puffing to win Jim White's approval and shake away from your skin his impression that you might be as utterly ridiculous to him as I am. But I am sure that was in an "intra-relational sense".

Gianni  Friday, June 08, 2007 11:04 pm “If you uphold the same (or enough) presuppositions that I do, then we will have a sort of self-affirming respect for one another. If we don't (as it is the case here), then I don't expect any respect from you. In fact, I don't what *what* you think of me, as long as your behaviors don't limit my own preferences (which they mostly do not).” I find this point a bit difficult to read or understand toward the end, but if I get this straight I agree that the French don’t make tractors like they used to. Anyway I certainly don't want to limit your preferences, because that would be wrong, wouldn't it?

Gianni  Friday, June 08, 2007 11:04 pm “If God exists, and my judgment is in his hands, all I can say is that I hope this God is not such a megalomaniac so as to determine my fate by the contents of my abstract thoughts, which I admit may or may not be correct, but they are mine, my own perspective, and that's what I've got, and that's what I offer.” Good point, they are your incorrect thoughts, which can't be stressed too much. And who does God think He is, anyway? Your Creator? Your Judge? Of course it is perhaps not so much the correctness of your abstract thoughts that is relevant here as their sinfulness.

Gianni  Friday, June 08, 2007 11:04 pm But since you admit your abstract thoughts may be incorrect, and thereby grant the existence of a fixed standard external to you which measures their correctness (or lack thereof), you'll have no problem in granting that your abstact thoughts (let alone your actions) may be sinful as well. Which means your point still stands, that is, they are your sins. So no need to be shy -- go ahead and offer your incorrect, sinful thoughts and actions to God, yell to Him that these are your sins, damn it, and hope for the best. But what if He asks you what's wrong with being a megalomaniac?

Gianni  Friday, June 08, 2007 11:05 pm “I hope, rather, that the Matt 25 judgment fits the picture better, wherein the question of who is a sheep or a goat is settle by the trajectory of one's acts of imaginative sympathy for others. It will turn out, then, I hope, that I will be found to be an sheep incognito.” Yes, that sounds like a reasonable hope, except that you may not be aware there's a more careful exegesis of that passage than the one you propose, which seems to indicate that Jesus is actually talking about a crisis situation in a small farm, possibly in Nebraska. And I heard rumors there are even more careful exegeses of that text around, so I suggest that you keep hunting for a firmer biblical foundation for your hope.

Gianni  Friday, June 08, 2007 11:05 pm “If not, I will shrug my shoulders (or whatever remains of me then), and say: "Well, it's all predestined anyway, is it not? I was just doing what I could, as a child of Adam. Apparently, I wasn't chosen, and given the grace to believe. Otherwise, things'd be different." What I am to do anyway? If the sovereign God so chooses, I will come (Jn. 6:37,44). If not, I cannot (Jn. 6:65).” I always wondered what the other people plan to say, in addition to the many who will say "Lord, Lord, didn't we...". Thanks for filling in this detail, although you clearly got your idea from Romans 9. Which means you should already know God's reply, which makes the whole effort rather pointless, if you ask me. Shrugging your shoulders sounds too informal for the occasion. How about gnashing your teeth?

Gianni  Friday, June 08, 2007 11:05 pm “Ultimately, the majority of humanity in hell forever is not our fault. We didn't ask to be born in such a hopeless and helpless condition. It's God's fault, since he could've seen to it that things were otherwise. I'm not saying that this negates a person's will; only that even the free actions of humans have their impulses from divine providence.” Yes, I hear many are complaining about that. But I heard that God at least gives people lots of time to elaborate this point when they get there. By the way, do you mean God would do something wrong in sending you to Hell, or you are just kidding? Sorry, I'm slow. Of course you must be kidding.

Gianni  Friday, June 08, 2007 11:05 pm “Believe me, if I found the Bible to square with my understanding of the world (which is determined by my experience), then I would still be a Christian.” I know what you mean. That's what I also told my history teacher once. He insisted that Napoleon lost the battle of Waterloo. I told him, "If you only agreed with me that he didn't, then I would believe you.” I'm the kind of person who would like to believe a lot of people, but they just don't give me a chance. “But my studies have shown me how insufficient the Christian narrative is for my needs.” Brilliant, that would never have occurred to me. I thought that the Christian narrative shows me how insufficient my studies are for my needs.

Gianni  Friday, June 08, 2007 11:05 pm “I don't eschew all of it. In fact I like a lot of it. There is a lot I don't like, too. But I use what I like and discard the rest.” Thanks for this clarification, I would have never guessed. There's a command in the Bible not to do this, but I am sure you have put it in the correct box. Yeah, I know, I know, it's your sin. Believe me, I have no intention to steal it from you while you are not looking. “You do the same thing, but work from within, and use interpretive stategies to discard what you don't like in ways that are acceptable within the Christian community you inhabit.” I was just wondering where I put my secret list of biblical passages I dislike. Good, you found it. Send it to me when you have a chance, will you?

Gianni  Friday, June 08, 2007 11:05 pm “But that's what everyone does, I think, so it's nothing to be ashamed of." That's what I was also thinking, but hear this. Like many other Christians, I use "interpretive stategies" to discard what I don't like about evolutionism in ways that are acceptable within the Christian community I inhabit. I am sure you are right that it's nothing to be ashamed of, but I keep wondering why some people get upset about that. For instance, there's a guy here who goes around yelling to us that what we do is "absurd at best...or misleading at worst". He even says we are "deceitful". I wish you could meet this guy and explain him a thing or two. While you are at it, you could ask him also what's wrong with being deceitful, given his worldview. I tried, but he eschews my questions.

Gianni  Friday, June 08, 2007 11:06 pm "I just so happens that I think Paul, Peter, John, Jesus and others are insufficient on a lot of things, or are just plain wrong. It's nothing personal. It's just that what they're saying doesn't jive with my experiences.” You may be on to something. When someone says things that don't jive with our experiences, it makes a lot of sense to conclude that he is “just plain wrong”. That's what I am sure you concluded when you heard about quantum physics, for example. But then some guys are saying things that don’t seem to jive with God’s experiences. Now what? Probably the prudent thing to say is that in these cases God is wrong anyway.

Gianni  Friday, June 08, 2007 11:06 pm “And what, then, am I to do? All I have are my individual experiences, mediated by language, my culture and my own idiosyncratic interests. All I have is one tiny little window into the world, and I'm doing the best I've got with it. If you think I'm wrong, I'm not offended. I agree that my window is tiny, and that I see through it darkly. I'm doing what I can, though.” Absolutely. Pete, don't be so hard on yourself, and please don't start crying. You are doing great. I mean, such a tiny window, such darkness, such a distance, and you can spot an error on the lips of Jesus Christ. “You might think your perspective reflects the ways things actually are in themselves, but I don't have that much faith in my perspective or ability to adjudicate things, or in any other human's.” I believe you, and of course this is the reason why you "think Paul, Peter, John, Jesus and others are insufficient on a lot of things, or are just plain wrong."

Gianni  Friday, June 08, 2007 11:06 pm “I won't pretend that I have arrive at "truth" or am evening coming closer to it, because one has to know how to ascertain what "truth" is in order to look for it, and, if one already knows that, then one already has what one's looking for." That is a wise attitude. If it helps to build your self-confidence (or self-diffidence, however you want to call it), I agree that you are nowhere close to the truth. "I cannot tell what the difference is between "It works because it's true," and "It's true because it works," nor how anyone could distinguish them definitively. So, I've given up that hope, and instead look for things that work for me, that help me make sense of things as I see them dimly through my window.” You know, Pete, I understand this sounds wise and so on, but in the long run I find all this talk about loss of hope, poorly sized windows, and eye disorders profoundly depressing and oddly unsettling. Just curious -- are you trying to ask me money?

Gianni  Friday, June 08, 2007 11:06 pm “You say that I borrow stuff from the Christian worldview.” Careful here. I didn’t say you borrow. I said you spy, you pick, and you keep. That’s not borrowing. And don’t look at me like that from behind that ski mask. You know me, I would never accuse you of borrowing. “Of course I do! So does everyone! We all borrow.Jesus, Peter, Paul et al borrowed from their contemporaries and predecessors. The luminaries of the OT borrowed from their ANE contemporaries and fathers, and they borrowed from theirs, who borrowed from theirs, etc. etc. **” Yeah, you are right: only God didn't borrow, and ultimately we all borrow from Him. But some people acknowledge this and thank him, others spy, pick and keep. And imagine what an idiot (and how ungrateful) a man would be if, with the tools he borrowed from God, he tried to argue against His existence. Of such a man it would be proper to say that he is a borrower only as an euphemism.

Gianni  Friday, June 08, 2007 11:07 pm “I have no idea what direction evolution will take us, and how Christianity will play into this history. Perhaps Christianity will achieve absolute dominance, but it may not. I'm guessing that it won't. And I agree that appeals to absolute truth can be a very persuasive and powerful rhetorical device to win a debate. But that is not how I operate." Sad to hear your team is joining the stegosaurs. Extinction is always a tragic event, but the bright side is that they will probably mention your name in museums, graveyards and stuff. "I don't feel like I'm being genuine to my picture of the world when I claim universals, truth, etc." Yes, and to change your picture of the world is of course out of the question, what with all the being born again procedure. What I like Pete is your consistency. I mean, it's not like you are the kind of guy who, having spoken thusly, then goes on to say that Christians use deceitful analogies, that God is a megalomaniac, or that Paul, Peter, John, Jesus and others are just plain wrong.

Gianni  Friday, June 08, 2007 11:07 pm "Also, I would say that there *is* nothing metaphysically wrong in my view with being sympathetic. I just happen to value sympathy." Yes, I agree that also the Danish tractors suck nowadays. And some people give really lame excuses for why they reject the Christian faith. "Again, I don't taken there to be metaphysical anything. Thus, when I talk about "wrong" and "right", I'm always talking about these terms in relation (Habermas might say something like a "philosophy of intersubjectivity")." Okay, so you mean you have no real objection to being sent to Hell. But that leaves you with lots of time and no long, sophisticated complaints against a megalomaniac and unfair God for you to elaborate while you sit there. Are you sure this is what you want? You can still kill time gnashing your teeth though.

Gianni  Friday, June 08, 2007 11:07 pm "The reason I don't value the prescription/proscriptions of the OT is that I value the friendships and well-being of many people who would fall under the judgment of these penalties." Yes, and imagine if those people, for fear of the penalties, would not do the things prohibited, would not fall under the penalties, and would stay home watching cartoons with their kids, while you would end up spending the afternoons sitting next to the gallows bitterly waiting for them to be hanged, so you could prove to them you value their well-being. Indeed, imagine all the people, living life in peace, their families converted to Jesus Christ several generations ago, and all together now freely agreeing to make the laws of their land more biblical. The few dissenters would need to move away or conform to the laws of the land, just as it is the case in this present society. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope some day you will join us, and so on.

Gianni  Friday, June 08, 2007 11:07 pm "Whether homosexuality "deserves" death is something for a community to decide. Again, I don't believe there is an absolute standard that can determine what an action "deserves" or not. I know people--Christian people, in fact--who identify themselves as homosexuals, or who have committed adultery. I also know some people who practice wicca, or at least have dabbled in it, but use such things not for the harm of others, but personal empowerment and improvement of themselves. I don't desire to see these people killed. They are connected to families, people who depend upon them, etc. and I just don't think shedding their blood is something that's worth the trouble, or the pain. Most of everyone else in the West agree with me, even if they don't personally think these actions right." Very well, a thing you value is that "whether homosexuality "deserves" death is something for a community to decide". See you around when the community decides to be theonomic then.

Gianni  Friday, June 08, 2007 11:07 pm "I don't say whether it's "right" to give such things another try. I don't prefer them, and will do what I can to outmaneuver those who do (the Theonomists, e.g.)." Pete, that sounds like an exciting plan, but the theonomists can easily outmaneuver you if you can't give people any reason to join you in outmaneuvering them beyond telling them that you don't prefer those guys, don't you think? Suppose you are alone against the theonomists. How are you going to outmaneuver them? With a rifle, one by one? You begin to sound like a Stalin, or a bear, or a bear named Stalin. Can't discuss with him, people will say. He doesn't even try to justify his preferences. He only mumbles, "Primates don't need a justification for their morality, so why do I?" There's no reasoning with a bear, there's no reasoning with a person such as Stalin, and there's no reasoning with a person such as Pete Glickenhaus. The only thing someone can do with someone like Stalin or a bear or Pete is to take away their claws, de-fang them, or whatever other measures you must take to protect yourself and the ones you love.

Gianni  Friday, June 08, 2007 11:08 pm The bright side of all this of course is that a character with your name is sure to be the villain in a flood of exciting action movies. You will be despised and mocked all over the world. If this was your plan all along, all I can say is that it sounds so madly clever that it might actually work. "Although I wouldn't put it the way you did ("decent"), of course I value certain ways of living over others! Of *course* I have preferences. Of *course* I'd rather live in certain ways, and see you live in certain ways (ways, ultimately, that don't conflict with my own preferences--other than that, I wouldn't care)." This part in not problematic. It's the irrational, unreasoned, Stalinesque outmaneuvering that worried me. But not anymore, now that I've understood what you are up to. Still, Pete, it all sounds a bit depressing.

Gianni  Friday, June 08, 2007 11:08 pm "Gianni--you clearly haven't read my posts closely enough" I know, but if I lean forward any further I risk spilling my coffee on the desk. Not that I haven't already spilled lots of it anyway reading your posts while sitting in my normal posture, but I need some coffee now. "because I already answered most of what you've objected to. Perhaps that just means you're not buying what I'm selling, and that's fine. Incommensurable vocabularies, I would say." You're here to sell us that stuff? Now I understand your bleak tone. You badly need a marketing advisor, Pete. Business for you must have been pretty discouraging lately. I mean, most of the people here are enthusiastic Christian postmils, and your Unique Selling Point ("Things To Ponder While in Hell") and motto ("Let's get extinct!") will leave people longing for something more upbeat.

Gianni  Friday, June 08, 2007 11:08 pm "I have already said that Stalin's behavior is no different to me than a bear's. There's no reasoning with a bear, and there's no reasoning with a person such as Stalin. The only thing someone can do with someone like Stalin or a bear is to take away their claws, de-fang them, or whatever other measures you must take to protect yourself and the ones you love (who will also have their own communities and webs of concern, thus making the protective community grow and grow)." Funny, I'm having a deja vu, and it's somehow about you. "Again, your objections have already been met with answers, answers that you will no doubt think insufficient." On the contrary, Pete, I think your answers are perfectly sufficient for all the objections I didn't make. Thanks.

Gianni  Friday, June 08, 2007 11:08 pm "We just don't share the same standards of sufficiency. These a priori commitments don't admit of argument, and so let us agree to disagree." Indeed, these a priori commitments are so nasty that I can't even agree with that. I do believe there's hope, and freedom just around the corner for you, as Bob Dylan would say. But with truth so far off, what good will it do? I do believe that, God willing, further dialogue may bring truth within your reach, a ray of light to your dark room, hope to your depressive condition, collyrium for your eyes, a larger window, forgiveness of sins, and eternal life. But that will be for some other time. Now I must clean up this desk.

Gianni  Friday, June 08, 2007 11:09 pm Jim, it's always like that. Seen from the outside, a worldview different from our own usually sounds odd, unconvincing and often ridiculous. The further removed you are from it philosophically and theologically, the harder you will laugh. So the fact that you are having a good time reading this conversation does not offend me, as it is simply a measure of how far removed your home is from mine. Put it another way, you are looking at me through the glasses of your own worldview, and I am sure I look funny that way. Guess how funny you look to me through my glasses. But some worldviews sound ridiculous and inconsistent also when seen from the inside. That spells death for that view. Pete is in coma. Be my guest and investigate if I am in trouble too. But you have to come inside to do that.

Gianni  Friday, June 08, 2007 11:11 pm Jim, you write: "It astounds me how unwilling people are to recognize others views as valid." Jim, you are right. Show them how to do it. "Gianni wouldn't have a problem with just Pete he would have a problem with anyone who isn't a Christian (the suggestion of evolutionary Christianity pssh). He would have the same problem with a Buddhist or a Muslim as he would with an agnostic or an atheist." Good, now you are beginning to understand my view. Hopefully it isn't hard for you to recognize it as valid.

Pete Glickenhaus  Saturday, June 09, 2007 5:59 am Gianni—you are confused. There is a vast difference between saying de facto that “God doesn’t exist,” and affirming that one simply does not have any positive faith in a God or gods, or what that might even mean. You are taking me as making metaphysical statements, which, as I have been saying over and over again, I am not. I do not say that there is or isn’t a God. The question is simply irrelevant to me. Insofar as I do not affirm the existence of a God, however, one can say that I am atheistic. As I have said before (and will say again), for all I know the Triune God exists. It’s basically akin to how I feel about alien civilizations. Do I affirm their existence? No. Deny them? No. Would I even have any ability to conceive of an alternate alien civilization based upon my local, terrestrial perspectives? No.

Pete Glickenhaus  Saturday, June 09, 2007 6:07 am I would attempt a reply at your inflamatory responses, but I won't. There is nothing to say. I am sorry that you have turned to straw-man arguments, personal insults, and gratuitous and hurtful sarcasm. Throughout, I am been at pains no to win a conversation, but to offer another perspective, a perspective that I hope would encourage conversation and get us all thinking outside our limited frameworks, etc. And I have never for a moment claimed to be correct, right, or whatever--just offering what I've got. It is you, Gianni, that has been so bold and insistent (utterly presumptuous, in my opinion) so as to claim that your ideas are the Final Truths of the World, without need of revision or self-reflective consideration. And this is the problem, I think. Who can have a conversation with someone who is committed to a monologue?

Pete Glickenhaus  Saturday, June 09, 2007 6:15 am I might here invoke a passage that, in my opinion, you have violated in your barrage of insulting and demeaning responses, a response that, I would hope, resonate with you. 2 Timothy 2:24ff: "A slave of the Lord should not quarrel, but should be gentle with everyone, able to teach, tolerant, correcting opponents with kindness." I think that, on the standards established here, you have failed. For you have esteemed winning an argument (an argumentative tone that I did not share, mind you) more important than reflecting the fruits of the spirit, of keeping your testimony pure before the world. I don't agree, finally, with your view of the world, Gianni. You might think that you have won with your lambasts and terse equivocations, but you have lost--lost, anyway, the only thing that ought to matter to a Christian: the ability to provide a witness to a non-believer.

Gianni  Saturday, June 09, 2007 8:23 am Pete, you said: “Let me make a prediction of how this conversation will go, of what Gianni will say even before he says it. He will make universal claims about how things really are, about self-evident and undeniable truths that every human knows deep-down, and that is somehow written into the cosmos; he will attempt to show how my viewpoint is contradictory and cannot definitively provide a foundation for a functioning society or even person; he will try to show how my position seems to give no one any reason to be kind; that the hope for any society and the future of humanity depend, ultimately, on universal truth claims, specifically those of Christianity.” Sounds like you think I am the one doing most of the work here.

Gianni  Saturday, June 09, 2007 8:23 am “I will disagree with all of this, and say that I am uncomfortable with the notion of truth, objective morality, universals, and the idea that anyone can somehow rise above history and get a perspective on things as they really are, etc; that I am entirely unashamed of my finitude as an individual, and that I cannot seem to understand things otherwise.” You disagree. You are uncomfortable. You are unashamed. You cannot understand things otherwise. Sounds like you think you come across as the lazy, insolent guy.

Gianni  Saturday, June 09, 2007 8:23 am “The reason our positions are incommensurable is that, at some point, there is cannot be any justification (other than an existential and personal one) for why certain presuppositions are held and not others.” Says who? Are you the same guy with the tiny window, an eye condition, and substandard illumination? Didn’t you claim to be the wrong guy when it comes to adjudicate things? Didn’t you promise you won’t pretend you have arrived at truth, or “evening coming closer to it”? What about your confession that you are not being genuine to your picture of the world when you claim universals and truth? You granted that your abstract thoughts may or may not be correct, and you admitted that “don’t have that much faith” in your own perspective”, so why should anyone else?

Gianni  Saturday, June 09, 2007 8:24 am “Gianni—you are confused. There is a vast difference between saying de facto that “God doesn’t exist,” and affirming that one simply does not have any positive faith in a God or gods, or what that might even mean. . . . I do not say that there is or isn’t a God. The question is simply irrelevant to me.” Sure. It certainly doesn’t sound like it is, though. “Insofar as I do not affirm the existence of a God, however, one can say that I am atheistic.” So if “one” can say it, why can’t I? “I would attempt a reply at your inflamatory responses, but I won't. There is nothing to say.” You have had nothing to say for a long time, Pete. It is wise to just keep doing what you are good at.

Gianni  Saturday, June 09, 2007 8:24 am “I am sorry that you have turned to straw-man arguments, personal insults, and gratuitous and hurtful sarcasm.” Why, what’s wrong with that? Assuming I did, of course. “Throughout, I am been at pains no to win a conversation, but to offer another perspective, a perspective that I hope would encourage conversation and get us all thinking outside our limited frameworks, etc.” No. Throughout you have been at pains to eschew objections, and to explain why, due to the poor size of your window, and to several other problems in the building where you live, you “don’t have that much faith” in your own perspective. “And I have never for a moment claimed to be correct, right, or whatever.” So what’s the problem? I never contradicted you there.

Gianni  Saturday, June 09, 2007 8:24 am “It is you, Gianni, that has been so bold and insistent (utterly presumptuous, in my opinion)” After you explain what’s wrong with being presumptuous, tell me how to be utterly presumptuous is even worse. “so as to claim that your ideas are the Final Truths of the World, without need of revision or self-reflective consideration.” That is also a sin? By what standard? I thought you “didn’t prefer” the theonomists, but the size of their list of ethical obligations pales next to yours. “And this is the problem, I think. Who can have a conversation with someone who is committed to a monologue?” That’s what I was also thinking.

Gianni  Saturday, June 09, 2007 8:24 am “I might here invoke a passage that, in my opinion, you have violated in your barrage of insulting and demeaning responses, a response that, I would hope, resonate with you. 2 Timothy 2:24ff: "A slave of the Lord should not quarrel, but should be gentle with everyone, able to teach, tolerant, correcting opponents with kindness." I think that, on the standards established here, you have failed.” Now put down that book, Pete, no quick movements, and walk away. Your tools, which you chose, are: (1) your abstract thoughts, (2) your preferences, (3) your tiny window, and (4) a weak lamp. Yes, there are also the parts of the Bible that you don’t eschew, but you are the guy who doesn’t see any reason to think the Bible is true. Now, everybody here expects you to use these tools in a way that reflects your lack of confidence in your ability to adjudicate things, your confession that you are not being genuine to your picture of the world when you claim universals and truth, and your admission that you don’t have that much faith in your own perspective.

Gianni  Saturday, June 09, 2007 8:25 am “For you have esteemed winning an argument (an argumentative tone that I did not share, mind you) more important than reflecting the fruits of the spirit, of keeping your testimony pure before the world.” Amazing, that tiny window. You can even see other people’s intentions and inner sins through it. Even so, I’d leave that job to God, Pete. “I don't agree, finally, with your view of the world, Gianni." I know. You eschew it and you don't prefer it. The one thing you won't do is to provide a reason for your unbelief. "You might think that you have won with your lambasts and terse equivocations, but you have lost--lost, anyway, the only thing that ought to matter to a Christian: the ability to provide a witness to a non-believer.” Which is bad, right? Pete, your worldview may be a mess, but it has been a pleasure listening to you and talking to you. See you around.