Thick Skin, Tender Hearts Print
Sex and Culture
Written by Douglas Wilson   
Wednesday, 19 December 2012 07:48

Lee Habeeb recently wrote a piece here for National Review Online, in which he was encouraging Christians to engage winsomely with our surrounding culture, and to make our peace with the way some things were going. He used the example of gay marriage in the civil sphere. David French wrote a very fine response here, but the money quote is below.

"It took me a long time to realize the following truth: No matter how compassionate, charitable, winsome, and kind you are, if you oppose the sexual revolution you are the enemy."

And this is precisely why Christians need to learn how to not care at all about certain things, and to care enormously about others. This is what I mean by having thick skin and a tender heart. Hint: this "caring" response must not be measured and evalued by the state-certified Curators of the Perpetual Grievance. They figured out (a long time ago) how to use the tender consciences of Christians against them. It is time that we got wise to that game. The fact that God knows our many faults (Ps. 130:3) does not mean that they have a right to bring charges against us (Ps. 31:13). David had many faults, and he was often attacked with them -- but he was not attacked for them.

Think of it this way:

"With respect to this they are surprised when you do not join them in the same flood of debauchery, and they malign you . . .(1 Pet. 4:4, ESV).

When they are surprised, we ought not to be. We ought not to be surprised when we don't join them, obviously, and we ought not to be surprised when they malign us for it, just as the apostle Peter outlined for us in the briefing beforehand.

Christians are trained, catechized, to care about the testimony we have with the world. This is important, as Peter does mention in the passage that follows. When we suffer, it ought not be because of murder, or theft, or doing evil, or as a busybody (v. 15). If you are being an outlaw, or a jerk, or a comstockian fusser, and then cry persecution when called on it, that really is a problem. But once Christians learn this lesson about the importance of a good testimony, they almost always start policing their own ranks in a way that ignores what Peter says in all the surrounding context.

We don't have a poor testimony just because a bunch of "outraged" pagans have agreed to claim that we do. When some Christian says something that is not politically correct, and the baddies all go into outrage mode, calling for apologies, we have to understand that they are running a play from their handbook.

If we go through a fiery trial, we ought not to think that "some strange thing" is happening (v. 12). If we partake in Christ's sufferings (which includes being slandered), Peter says that we are to rejoice. This lines up with what Jesus taught us on the same subject (Matt. 5:12). If you are reproached for the name of Christ, then you are happy -- and the spirit of glory and of God rests upon you (v. 14).

This is why, in the Olympic games of our culture wars, it is possible to win a gold medal from God when a bunch of your fellow Christians are embarrassed even to look at you. And that is also why this particular kind of gold medal doesn't usually go to your head -- you can't hear the national anthem over all the sobbing, and the podium you are standing on is barely visible any more because of the great heap of rotting produce, dead cats, and other objects of questionable origin.

So here is the key. When you are reproached for the sake of Christ, the adversary will almost never issue a press release saying that you are being attacked because you are such a fine Christian. Why would they do that? The point of slander is to make the slander stick. And the point of gullible Christians is to believe them, try to witness to them while staying in line (according to them), and to upbraid you for having provoked them so. 

Deeply Flawed 



Add this page to your favorite Social Networking websites
Digg! Reddit! Del.icio.us! Mixx! Google! Live! Facebook! StumbleUpon! MySpace! Yahoo! BlogRolling! Twitter! LinkedIn! TwitThis
 
Comments
Search
Only registered users can write comments!
Joe Rigney  Wednesday, December 19, 2012 8:23 am
It is remarkable that we can't recognize the parallels between the biblical passages on being maligned and slandered and our own day.

And it's why our personal holiness, our corporate holiness, our holiness as defined by God, is so important for our proclamation. The slanders will come and they should actually be slanders.
Rod Story  - Being "Borked"  Wednesday, December 19, 2012 1:29 pm
I believe the appropriate term for what you are describing is "Being Borked." RIP Robert Bork.
Sergius Martin-George  - "Winsome"  Wednesday, December 19, 2012 3:54 pm
"It took me a long time to realize the following truth: No matter how compassionate, charitable, winsome, and kind you are, if you oppose the sexual revolution you are the enemy."

I take it Mr. French has been reading John Piper and the Gospel Coalition blogging team.

Was there a secret conference at which "winsome" became the official Reformed buzzword of the 2010s?
oldfatslow  - Winsome this you @#$%#@%  Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:16 pm
Sergius Martin-George wrote:
[i]Was there a secret conference at which "winsome" became the official Reformed buzzword of the 2010s?


Nah, "winsome" and even "irenic" have
long history of reformed usage. At least,
that's what I remember from my PCA
days.

ofs
Eric the Red  Friday, December 21, 2012 4:48 am
Peter also says let none of you suffer as a busybody in other men's affairs, and telling gays they can't marry or women that they must continue a pregnancy is being a busybody in other men's affairs.

As one who is both pro-choice and pro-gay marriage, I have no problem with you not having abortions or same sex marriages if you think they are wrong. It's when you start to tell other people that they can't either, that you've crossed a line.
Jon Swerens  Friday, December 21, 2012 5:48 am
Eric:

Speaking of busybodies: Here you are, telling other people what not to do.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Charles Long  - re:  Friday, December 21, 2012 7:43 am
Eric the Red wrote:
Peter also says let none of you suffer as a busybody in other men's affairs, and telling gays they can't marry or women that they must continue a pregnancy is being a busybody in other men's affairs.

Eric, by your reckoning, I would be a "busybody in other men's affairs" by telling a man he can't marry a 9 year old boy. Is this what you intended? If you see some kind of distinction between the two, please show the math.
Eric the Red  Friday, December 21, 2012 8:10 pm
Charles, there are several reasons why a man can't marry a 9 year old boy, and one of the simplest and most straightforward is that a nine year old lacks the capacity to enter into a contract. That is also one of the reasons you can't marry a German shepherd, a goldfish, or an alarm clock.
Charles Long  - re:  Friday, December 21, 2012 11:08 pm
Eric the Red wrote:
...one of the simplest and most straightforward [reasons you can't]is that a nine year old lacks the capacity to enter into a contract.

Nice. Let's look at what just happened. Doug wrote a blog post which includes a reason why people can't do something. You are having none of this, and so in your indignation you write a response which... wait for it... waaaait fooooor iiit... gives a reason why people can't do something.

I think the technical term for this is "Sucking the Postmodern Hind Tit."
katecho  Saturday, December 22, 2012 12:07 pm
Indeed. Good call. Eric the Red, like other postmoderns, has missed the point. The issue is not that we think he actually lacks a standard. Standards are a dime a dozen. Everyone draws lines. Eric can't help himself. He is busy drawing lines all the time in his opposition and complaining against Doug. Of course people make up gods all the time too, and if Eric is going to make up a morality for himself, he may as well be fabricating gods too. It would make as much sense. The materialistic universe needs made up moral qualms as much as it needs made up gods.
Rather the key issue is that Eric's materialism makes all of his standards and lines completely arbitrary. Not only are they arbitrary, but they are toothless and impotent since there is no purpose or teleology for anything. It's a bus to nowhere. At the end of the day, the only power that could ever exist in Eric's utilitarianism is material power, i.e. "might makes right". An amoral beginning leads only to an amoral result.
I believe Eric actually knows that his standards are the work of arbitrary human imagination (probably his own), which is why he tries to make a limp-wristed appeal to our standards. He will insist that our standards are not really revealed from above, but are fabricated and bootstrapped just like his. He assumes that if his boat is underwater, we must be in the same boat.
It's the same old postmodern materialism. It's not getting any more persuasive.
Eric the Red  Saturday, December 22, 2012 5:55 am
Charles, first, I'm not indignant. You asked me why something can't be done and I told you. Any indignation exists only in your own mind.

Second, you seem to have the idea that the only two alternatives are that everything may be permitted, or everything may be forbidden. Those are not the only two choices. I can tell the difference between an adult and a child, even if you claim not to be able to. The fact that I disagree with you as to where the line is drawn does not mean I believe in no line at all.
Eric the Red  Saturday, December 22, 2012 5:59 am
Actually, let me elaborate on that second point because it's fairly important. Your position, if I understand it correctly, is that if I don't accept your standards, then there are no standards at all. And that's nonsense. If a Muslim made the same claim -- either accept the teachings of the Koran or you have no standards at all -- you'd have no trouble seeing why.

In fact, your premises make it harder to have standards, because it then becomes a package deal of take it or leave it, meaning any disagreement over an individual case -- such as abortion or gay marriage -- renders us unable to set a standard for anything else. My premises, on the other hand, allow me to look at individual cases. If I decided tomorrow that I've been wrong about abortion and gay marriage, I could change my view without then having to revisit my views on any other individual cases.
katecho  Saturday, December 22, 2012 12:17 pm
This is another way of saying that Eric the Red's standards are fluid. They are as fresh and current as the latest circumstance. Since they are concocted anyway, this would make sense. Since they are the work of man's hands, they can be refashioned accordingly. Of course, this also means these standards carry the same prescriptive authority as bits of aerogel in a stiff breeze. Eric has already conceded this point.
katecho  Saturday, December 22, 2012 11:45 am
Eric the Red seems to have been absent from the blog just long enough to have forgotten that that his own stated utilitarian moralism has been shown to be, in fact, thoroughly amoral. It isn't concerned with right or wrong, but whether something "works" to promote "social happiness" as he arbitrarily defines it. It is consequentialism, at best.
Aside from all that, Eric the Red previously conceded that his ethical system contains no prescriptive or imperative framework. Eric agreed that there are no "oughts" in his system. None.
Somehow he forgets himself and wants to ride back in on his high saddle and start prescribing stuff anyway. We can beat that horse again, if needed, but it is already dead. Eric's materialism supplies no moral obligations, just arbitrary amoral utilitarian scale-tipping and verbal power play. In other words, Eric is not being true to his own stated system. He doesn't hold to it in practice.
Eric the Red  Monday, December 24, 2012 6:07 am
Katecho is correct that my ethical system doesn't contain absolute oughts. Neither do my chocolate chip cookies contain green chile peppers, and neither does my pot roast contain peanut butter. So what?

Katecho has not demonstrated that absolute oughts are necessary (or for that matter desirable) to an ethical system. Since I see no evidence that they are (and much evidence they are not), I don't put them in. I also don't put marshmallow creme in my mashed potatoes.

Now, if Katecho likes marshmallow creme in his mashed potatoes, I'm not going to try to talk him out of it. I just wish he would quit pretending that it's not "real" mashed potatoes unless it contains marshmallow creme.
Charles Long  - re:  Monday, December 24, 2012 9:01 am
Eric the Red wrote:
Katecho is correct that my ethical system doesn't contain absolute oughts... if Katecho likes marshmallow creme in his mashed potatoes, I'm not going to try to talk him out of it.


And I'll put pederasty in mine. And all future objections from you, about anything, will be chalked up to mere statements of preference. What a wonderful world we live in!

Seriously, Eric, you need to stay in the kiddie pool.
katecho  Tuesday, December 25, 2012 11:00 pm
I'm not sure where Eric the Red came up with "absolute oughts". He didn't make that distinction when he conceded the point previously, and I certainly had no use for that qualifier. In any case, Eric doesn't seem to have grasped the scope of the problem. It's not that his materialism provides no absolute oughts, it is that his system supports no oughts or prescription of any kind.
In his system, whatever is, is. That is all that materialism can say about it. If the laws of physics allow such and such to happen, then it happens. Matter does not move with regard for anything other than those laws. "Oughtness" does not influence the motion of the matter at all. Eric does not fire his neurons, the laws of physics fire them. Trying to attach any moral value or intent or purpose or meaning to their firing is about as rational as inventing gods. The entire project of morality and ethics is irrelevant to the motion of matter. No such term ever appears in the equations of their motion. Eric the Red is just waxing metaphysical when he speaks of moral things.
Where is Eric the Red's own moral skepticism? Why do others have to introduce him to the consequences of his materialism?
Eric the Red  Monday, December 24, 2012 11:36 am
No, Charles, it's not a matter of subjective preference; I've already explained this, and you putting your fingers in your ears and saying "la la la I can't hear you" doesn't change that. It's an objective inquiry on the cause-and-effect relationship between certain types of behavior and the society it produces. Spend a few minutes thinking through what kind of society would bless pedophilia, then ask yourself if that's a desirable society in which to live, and you'll have your answer.

But more to the point, neither you nor Katecho have demonstrated that absolute oughts are necessary to a moral system; you're simply assuming that to be the case. I can give you six million reasons why they aren't: Because sometimes even the best of absolute oughts can be abused or misinterpreted, or even be invalid outside certain limits, and you end up with a Spanish Inquisition or a Holocaust as the result. You don't think Torquemada and Hitler believed in absolute oughts? And at such times, it's really nice to be able to say, "OK, folks, are we sure we're headed in the direction in which we wish to go, and if not, maybe putting the brakes on might not be such a bad idea."
Eric the Red  Monday, December 24, 2012 11:39 am
And this discussion is really the same argument Kant and Hume have over whether absolute oughts are the standard (Kant) or whether desirable results are the standard (Hume). If you wish to cast your lot with Kant, be my guest; on this issue, I'm with Hume.
katecho  Tuesday, December 25, 2012 11:46 pm
Eric is simply incorrect that I ever made any such argument or assumption regarding "absolute" oughts. I used no such qualifier. I simply observe that Eric the Red's materialism provides no rational basis for oughts or prescription of any kind, absolute or otherwise. Eric has previously conceded this point.

Eric the Red seems to want to make some sort of appeal to cause-and-effect, as if that is somehow instructive in moral behavior. We've tried to explain why this fails, and we can easily do so in more detail. It is simply consequentialism: "if you want result X, then do Y, and don't do Z". This sounds simple enough, until one eventually asks, "should I want result X or not X?" Eric the Red just skips this part and assumes that homo sapiens generally want a "happy society" (whatever that is), and we should just accept it and not question it. Rational skepticism is completely absent. Eric's values are suspended in midair, unquestioned. Eric apparently can't get out of the pool and on to the meat of where all of these moral values that he plays with are supposed to come from in the first place.

Homo sapiens are overwhelmingly theistic too. Now what? Should Eric promote theism or not? Are allegedly made up gods less valuable than admittedly made up moral standards? Eric apparently can't help us with such questions. Whatever is, is. Unless it is theism, then somehow Eric has some other special pleading he whips up from the same echo chamber that his ethical standards come from. It's all hung on nothing. It's all the byproduct of intentionless matter. Eric chops down a proposition from the forest, and hacks it in two. From one end he carves an idol, and bows down to it and worships it. From the other end he builds a fire and warms his backside, and pronounces his enlightenment.
If Eric is going to appeal to rational reason, then the skeptics among us are still waiting for Eric to give a rational case for valuing one legal motion of matter over any other legal motion of matter. If he can't establish any rational value of one result over another, then neither is there any rational value for the causes that produce those results.
Eric the Red  Wednesday, December 26, 2012 4:46 am
First of all, it isn't true that my system doesn't have oughts; they're just not absolute, which is what I thought distinguished my worldview from Katecho's. But to the extent that we're talking about oughts in general, absolute or not, my original question remains: Katecho has not demonstrated (at least not that I've noticed) that "oughts" are either required or desired for a moral system.

That's because even if he were right that my world view is deterministic and we are all nothing more than matter, we still have the ability to inflict pleasure or pain on other living things, and the consequences of our doing so often come back to us. In point of fact, my belief that this life is my only opportunity to be kind to other living things and leave them better than I found them -- that if I don't do it, no god is going to do it either, and once I die my opportunity to do so will forever be lost -- is a powerful motivator to treat other people as well as my nature allows.

And by the way, for someone to wrap himself in the violent, bloody, bigoted moral code of the Bible, and then presume to tell the rest of us that we don't have "real" ethics, is a bit rich.
Eric the Red  Wednesday, December 26, 2012 5:30 am
And by the way, Katecho, what is this nonsense about you complaining about determinism? If you, like most others here, are a Calvinist, then you, too, believe in determinism, only with God pulling the strings rather than the laws of nature. Calvinism is basically determinism for theists, as Pharaoh would be happy to tell you.

So to the extent I am a determinist -- which is probably not as much as you think -- maybe you and I believe the same thing, but we've given it different names. Maybe you've simply taken the laws of nature and called them "God". I know that's a ghastly thought, but perhaps we're closer together in our world views than you think.
katecho  Wednesday, December 26, 2012 8:01 pm
Under a previous post, Eric the Red conceded that his worldview has no oughts or imperatives:
Quote:
I will cheerfully concede that my views on nutrition do not include giving glory to God, nor are they concerned with vindicating some moral "ought", but since none of that is part of my worldview, if pressed on the issue my response will be "so what?" Whether by your Christian theology or my Humian utilitarianism, we both arrive at the same conclusion that nutrition is a desirable thing. The only practical difference is that I don't have to waste my time chasing an imperative that I don't think is there.

But now he seems to want to take it all back, saying:
Quote:
First of all, it isn't true that my system doesn't have oughts; they're just not absolute,

I suspect Eric's worldview lacks the moral imperative for him to keep his story straight.
katecho  Wednesday, December 26, 2012 8:56 pm
Eric the Red wrote:
Quote:
But to the extent that we're talking about oughts in general, absolute or not, my original question remains: Katecho has not demonstrated (at least not that I've noticed) that "oughts" are either required or desired for a moral system.

Eric bounces between conceding that his system has no oughts or imperatives, and then asserting that he really does too have some, and then finally insisting on a demonstration whether he needs any. He seems to be completely unsure of where to stand.

His question is a bit like asking why requirements are required, or "why should there be any shoulds?" The simple answer is that his moral system doesn't require any imperatives at all if it is the sort of moral system that everyone can simply ignore. For example, if Eric the Red has concocted a morality around which flavors of jelly beans are good and which are evil, then it is just a private personal preference and lacks any imperative. We can all ignore it. But if Eric thinks his moral imaginations should be noticed and obeyed outside of his own mind, then he has to supply some imperative and prescriptive authority. In the past, Eric has made movements in the direction of appeals to social contracts and conventions, etc, etc. but we have pointed out that, in his system, this is as far as he can go in his appeal to authority. In a purposeless universe, Eric can only appeal to the collective jelly bean preferences of the society around him. We all see that there is nothing rational or logical about this. Is something true because a culture believes that it is? Eric apparently sees no problem building on it, unless, of course, his society happens to be theistic, then he breaks rank and abandons his collectivist morality like a hot potato.

Most Christians have figured out that made up individualistic moral systems don't improve by bagging them together into a collective make believe moral system. Eric is still faced with one of those two options though, since he rejects any external revelation, purpose, or telos to our existence. He has to go with what he made up himself, or with what the majority of the homo sapiens around him made up. Of course this is anything but rational, since Eric is committing himself to "imperatives" that he knows to be make believe.

On this blog, Eric tries religiously to conceal any direct statements about what anyone should or shouldn't do. He couches his statements in the forms like, "if you want outcome X, then do Y and not Z". He avoids the touchy question of whether we should want outcome X. He simply appeals to the existing values and moral instincts of his audience, which is actually a logical fallacy.
katecho  Wednesday, December 26, 2012 10:24 pm
Eric the Red wrote:
Quote:
That's because even if he were right that my world view is deterministic and we are all nothing more than matter, we still have the ability to inflict pleasure or pain on other living things, and the consequences of our doing so often come back to us.

Eric seems bound to "inflict pleasure" (his flavor) on others by hounding the theists.

I'm not sure why Eric chooses to become slippery now. If he believes we are something more than matter/energy, then Eric should spill it already.

I am puzzled what else Eric thinks he has to work with besides the laws of physics, acting in space/time, on matter/energy. Does Eric not accept that the four fundamental forces of nature are complete? Is he holding out for something else? I realize some (like Penrose) have tried to get off of the horns of determinism by appealing to quantum randomness, but a dash of randomness does nothing to rescue a position that alleges to be rational. Also, determinism isn't really the issue (which is why I didn't present the problem in those terms). Whether the motion of bits of matter is completely determined all the way down, or only partially determined to Plank scales, the issue is that the fundamental forces of material interaction are the only forces at work. This means that however matter moves, it isn't moving with regard to anything else. Matter moves without regard for any abstractions, like morality, purpose, desire, etc. Those notions are post hoc, and utterly irrelevant in the equations. Eric can't just wish them into being relevant.

Perhaps Eric is becoming nervous about owning up to materialism in a public forum. He is welcome to deny that he is a materialist, but denial doesn't solve the problem. Eric can call himself whatever he wants, but as a professing atheist he still has to explain how he resolves the materialistic dilemma. I personally think he's got nothing, but we'll see.

Eric the Red wrote:
Quote:
In point of fact, my belief that this life is my only opportunity to be kind to other living things and leave them better than I found them -- that if I don't do it, no god is going to do it either, and once I die my opportunity to do so will forever be lost -- is a powerful motivator to treat other people as well as my nature allows.


This is a very quaint and sentimental religious creed. Eric is full of the milk of human kindness, for the betterment of all. Who could argue against such generic, undefined platitudes? We are all in favor of the value of kindness and betterment, right? Eric hopes so. Unfortunately, these concepts have no objective meaning or referent in the intentionless ancient belch called the Big Bang. They are but an accidental patterns of neurochemical firing located between Eric the Red's ears. Why does he believe any of it? I will give him credit for calling it his "belief" though. But is it rational, given his other commitments?

Eric the Red wrote:
Quote:
And by the way, for someone to wrap himself in the violent, bloody, bigoted moral code of the Bible, and then presume to tell the rest of us that we don't have "real" ethics, is a bit rich.

Apparently this ribbon of ad hominem insult is a grand display of Eric's kindness to all other living beings. Epithets are a demonstration of how Eric leaves us all better than he found us.

Perhaps Eric could explain how I have "wrapped myself" in the violence and bloodiness of the Bible. I don't recall doing that. The Bible is certainly full of episodes of violence and bloodiness, some of it wicked, and some of it virtuous, but that distinction would require a discussion of moral and civic guilt and innocence. Eric ignores such distinctions for rhetoric effect. Perhaps Eric's worldview glasses are rose-colored, but violence and bloodshed exist in the real world, and the Christian view addresses them with justice, and provides an answer to sin. Eric's "survival of the fittest" does not. Eric wants to push me to be ashamed of God's violence and bloodshed, but Eric is more likely to hurt himself in the attempt. God has done all things uprightly. This misdirection tactic is a sure sign that Eric would rather the focus not be on him and his worldview problems.

Finally, Eric is factually wrong. I have not argued that atheists have no real ethics or moral compass. Those are a dime a dozen. I have simply observed that atheists lack any moral magnetic field to direct their compass. They make it point wherever they wish, as Eric has just demonstrated for us.
katecho  Thursday, December 27, 2012 12:30 am
Eric the Red wrote:
Quote:
And by the way, Katecho, what is this nonsense about you complaining about determinism? If you, like most others here, are a Calvinist, then you, too, believe in determinism, only with God pulling the strings rather than the laws of nature. Calvinism is basically determinism for theists, as Pharaoh would be happy to tell you.

I've already explained in my previous post why determinism itself is a subset of the problem for materialists. Whether the forces of matter are purely deterministic, or admitting of random quantum fluctuations, the problem is that those forces are all that are at work, and they have no regard for any of the post hoc metaphysics that Eric the Red is engaged in with his made up moral system. Whether he thinks it is purely deterministic or wildly indeterminate, the matter between his ears is not moving with regard for any moral abstractions. What else is at work there besides fundamental forces of physics?

Regarding Calvinism, Eric seems to think he is really clever, but he is recycling assertions he has made before and which were already addressed in detail under Doug's Sam Harris posts. Even though it is a misdirection tactic, I'll point out some very obvious distinctions that Eric is not making. First, materialistic determinism is impersonal, whereas God is personal. This means that all of the personal characteristics and moral obligations come into creation from the beginning and don't have to be ginned up out of elementary particles. As children may not like to be under the direction of their parents, we may not like to be under God's authority, but His determination remains personal and there remains a purpose and intended contribution from everything that comes to pass. God is making a point somewhere with it. This cannot be said of the blind accidents that a godless nature determines. The problem with such determinism is the hollow purposeless of it. There is no personal consideration within any of the forces of nature. Second, Calvinists have long distinguished primary and secondary causes. Andrew Roggow explained to Eric that the will of man is subordinate to the will of God, which is not the same thing as saying that the will of man is non-existent. Scripture affirms everywhere that we are accountable agents with genuine freedoms, we aren't just an inanimate ball of strings for God to pull on. God is certainly powerful enough to override our freedoms at any and every point, and even pull every string as if every man were inanimate, but no one reading Scripture suggests this is God's general pattern. Even Pharaoh's hardness of heart was a consequence of his choices. There is nothing mutually exclusive about a sovereign will and a subordinate will.

Eric the Red wrote:
Quote:
So to the extent I am a determinist -- which is probably not as much as you think -- maybe you and I believe the same thing, but we've given it different names. Maybe you've simply taken the laws of nature and called them "God". I know that's a ghastly thought, but perhaps we're closer together in our world views than you think.

Eric is responsible for his own ghastly thoughts. Projecting them on me is not helpful.
Eric clearly wants this topic to go away. He assures us that he is not much of a determinist. Of course his assurances are empty without even a hint of how his worldview avoids the materialistic dilemma. Until he addresses this, his moral hobby horse has no gallop, and he should expect someone to note that it has no legs either.
Eric the Red  Thursday, December 27, 2012 4:49 am
First, I don't see a contradiction between saying, in the context of nutrition, that it's not a moral issue so there aren't any oughts to be sought, and then saying later, in a different context, that there are oughts, just not absolute. I "ought" to leave for work soon so I can enjoy the ability to pay my bills and put food on my table, but if a larger "ought" comes along and preempts it -- say, an accident victim needs help -- the first "ought" can be set aside. Where's the contradiction?

Second, it matters not one whit to the person whose life is being determined whether the determinism comes from a personal or impersonal source. Under Katecho's Calvinism, I have an eternal destiny that I can do nothing to change. Under material determinism, I have biological and physical imperatives that I can do nothing to change. In both cases, I'm mostly just along for the ride with no real control over my destiny, so from my standpoint, Calvinism is merely determinism for theists.

Third, assume for the sake of argument that Katecho is right that I have no "magnetic field" to which to point an ethical compass. In the first place, that would merely make atheism unpleasant but not necessarily untrue, since the fact that his system is more emotionally appealing does Butnot make it true. In the second place, however we got here, we are now here, and may as well build a pleasant society in which to live rather than a miserable society in which to live.

Finally, if materialistic determinism is true, and if it is also true that most people try to live an ethical life (as they understand the term), which is also true, then maybe the "magnetic field" Katecho is looking for is nothing more than some bit of biological determinism that tells them to build a more pleasant society for themselves and their loved ones. This is really not as complicated as Katecho is trying to make it.

And now, I really "ought" to leave for work.
katecho  Thursday, December 27, 2012 1:27 pm
Eric the Red wrote:
Quote:
First, I don't see a contradiction between saying, in the context of nutrition, that it's not a moral issue so there aren't any oughts to be sought, and then saying later, in a different context, that there are oughts, just not absolute. I "ought" to leave for work soon so I can enjoy the ability to pay my bills and put food on my table, but if a larger "ought" comes along and preempts it -- say, an accident victim needs help -- the first "ought" can be set aside. Where's the contradiction?

While there could be moral implications in the area of nutrition, fortunately, no one has suggested that every issue is a moral one, so that's a red herring. The difficulty for Eric is that he has not been able to explain how any issue is a moral one, given his materialism. Matter simply does not move with regard to any moral considerations, or any other quaint abstractions. Moral considerations do not appear in the equations of their motion, or in the firing of any neurons between Eric's ears. Eric continues to ignore this problem as if it isn't important to him. Eric just assumes that if he is capable of making moral assertions, then that is all the justification he needs to continue doing so. The lack of self-conscious skepticism on his part is staggering.

Notice Eric's examples continue to follow his usual form. "If I want X, then I ought to do Y." At least he had the courtesy to put "ought" in quotation marks this time, because he knows it isn't what we are actually talking about. No one disputes that if you make up some goal in your head, then certain behaviors will be observed to either promote or thwart its achievement. If Eric wants to eat and pay his bills, then he best get himself to work. If Eric wants to kick puppies all day, then he "ought" to buy some nice heavy boots. What is the moral value of paying ones bills versus kicking puppies all day? Eric dances away from any systematic response to that question, though his credibility lives or dies on it. Eric keeps starting with "if I want...", "if I desire...". Piffle. Moral imperatives are those obligations and oughts that rest on us even when we don't want them to do so. No one is interested in the behaviors that are required to achieve Eric's made up values and goals. Such requirements are only "required" in relation to fantasies of his mind, and not by any actual obligations. If we made up gods the way Eric makes up his moral values, Eric would be having none of it. Eric would probably want to know why make-believe should inform our actions, let alone anyone else's. We are waiting for Eric to achieve self-awareness and begin to question his moral assumptions.
katecho  Thursday, December 27, 2012 1:29 pm
Eric the Red wrote:
Quote:
Second, it matters not one whit to the person whose life is being determined whether the determinism comes from a personal or impersonal source.

This is plainly false. Parents, for example, determine all sorts of things on behalf of their children, and it makes a great deal of difference to the child that parents do so as opposed to, say, the impersonal forces of some wilderness. Eric is asserting that there would be no difference between a blind meteor that strikes a child and takes her arm off, and a set of parents determining that it is time for their child's arm to be amputated because of a cancer. In both cases the child's life will be directly affected by externally determined causes, but in only one case is the child's life being considered at all. In only one case is her personal makeup, character, well-being, desires and will being considered.

Eric's view assumes that determination by a representative authority must necessarily require ignoring the subordinate desires and will of the one being represented. This marks the third time we've attempted to caution Eric away from this straw man fallacy. Just because God is the supreme Determiner does not mean that our subordinate desires have to be completely ignored by Him. Just because God's will always carries the day, it does not follow that our subordinate will becomes non-existent.

Eric the Red wrote:
Quote:
Under Katecho's Calvinism, I have an eternal destiny that I can do nothing to change.

This is the same tired straw man we are used to seeing get blasted. Anyway, katecho's Calvinism does not resemble Eric's Calvinism. Eric's Calvinism assumes that he would somehow desire to change something that he is armed with no knowledge of in the first place. Eric has no access to God's particular eternal decrees concerning himself, so why does he automatically assume that he is being oppressed? That's an irrational conclusion.

If Eric continues to live a life of thankless defiance of God's authority, and if he seeks to escape the presence of God in this life, is anyone going to be shocked if this exactly lines up with God's eternal decree in the final judgment? Is Eric going to suddenly cry foul? If so, this would simply be a reflection of Eric's fickle-headedness, and no reflection against God. If Eric thinks he would have preferred to have lived eternally in God's presence after all, then why doesn't he prove it by living like it starting today? Eric is also assuming that if he pulled a last minute flip-flop he might somehow catch God off guard in the final courtroom and have something to whine about. This is just silliness. God sees Eric's heart at all times. God is just, and His eternal decrees aren't going to be ambushed in the 11th hour by the likes of Eric.

Eric the Red wrote:
Quote:
Under material determinism, I have biological and physical imperatives that I can do nothing to change.

Eric is capable of rendering reasonably accurate sentences. This is an example. Although we could still debate whether materialism leaves any room for a distinct "I" or self from which to even stage such a resistance. Those biological imperatives go all the way down to each and every neuron that makes up Eric's materialistic "self", right?

Eric the Red wrote:
Quote:
In both cases, I'm mostly just along for the ride with no real control over my destiny, so from my standpoint, Calvinism is merely determinism for theists.

Just because Eric's will is not the final criteria in whether his sins are being paid for by Christ, it isn't automatically excluded as a subordinate factor. Eric may want utter control over whether his debts will get paid by someone else, but the One paying such debts is making the final call. In spite of Eric's false dichotomy, utter control and zero input are not the only alternatives.

For the record, Eric has now publicly conceded that, at least in the case of his materialism, he is "mostly just along for the ride". Eric is reluctant to embrace the extent of his philosophical predicament, but he has now "mostly" retreated from his pretense of self-determination. One step at a time, I guess.
katecho  Thursday, December 27, 2012 2:45 pm
Eric the Red wrote:
Quote:
Third, assume for the sake of argument that Katecho is right that I have no "magnetic field" to which to point an ethical compass.

Why does Eric keep dancing away from actually addressing this question? If his world could induce a magnetic field to direct his moral compass, wouldn't he want to present it, rather than have to keep assuming that I'm right?

Eric the Red wrote:
Quote:
In the first place, that would merely make atheism unpleasant but not necessarily untrue, since the fact that his system is more emotionally appealing does Butnot make it true. In the second place, however we got here, we are now here, and may as well build a pleasant society in which to live rather than a miserable society in which to live.

Not necessarily untrue? What does truth even mean in a universe driven forward exclusively by physical laws? Are some atomic reactions true, and others untrue? Truth is an abstraction that has no bearing on the motion of even one atom in Eric's universe.

But now it is important to identify a major logical blunder on Eric's part. Eric states that belief in an emotionally appealing philosophy does not make it true. Belief does not make something true. Got it. Check.
But then look what Eric immediately does next. Eric says that however we got here, here we are, and we may as well make the best of the situation. Notice how quickly everything is justified for its therapeutic benefit. We know the universe has no purpose, but hey, here we are, let's make up some purposes and goals for ourselves anyway. It'll be pleasurable (more emotionally appealing). The universe places no moral obligations of any kind, but hey, here we are, let's do moral make-believe for the pure entertainment of it.

Eric has finally given away the store. His ship wasn't sinking fast enough, so he torpedoed it. What happened to Eric's claim that belief does not make something true? In the same paragraph Eric effectively says, "to hell with it, let's make up some purposes and goals and morals for ourselves and pretend like they are true even when we know it's all a complete feel-good fabrication." Does Eric really think this kind of worldview make-believe is supposed to be persuasive or appealing to Christians? How is willful self-delusion attractive? It is a monument to irrationality!
katecho  Thursday, December 27, 2012 2:47 pm
Eric the Red wrote:
Quote:
Finally, if materialistic determinism is true, and if it is also true that most people try to live an ethical life (as they understand the term), which is also true, then maybe the "magnetic field" Katecho is looking for is nothing more than some bit of biological determinism that tells them to build a more pleasant society for themselves and their loved ones. This is really not as complicated as Katecho is trying to make it.

Eric has swallowed whole the logical fallacy that whatever is, ought to be. 'If most homo sapiens are biologically determined to do moral make-believe, then they ought to.' Where did the ought come from again?

How is this different from observing that homo sapiens overwhelmingly try to live theistic lives for a more pleasant society? Does this mean they ought to live theistic lives? Are the same rules of biological determinism not at work in theists? Eric has just turned into mush. What argument does he have left to use against the biologically determined theistic majority now? Oops. And what happened to Eric's statement that belief in something doesn't make it true? Maybe truth is irrelevant when everything is biologically accidental and determined anyway. Ya think?

The tentacles of ethical nihilism are tightening around Eric's throat.

Where have all the skeptics gone? Long time passing.
Eric the Red  Thursday, December 27, 2012 5:18 pm
Katecho, almost all of your responses consist of one equivocation after another, in which you take a term that I meant in one way, and are using it in another. In fact, you've done so much of it in this thread that I'm having a hard time believing you're not doing it intentionally. Disagree with me if you like, but at least be honest about what my argument is.

And I really don't have time to go back, sentence by sentence, and demonstrate how you've turned almost all of my arguments on their heads to make them say different (and in some cases diametrically opposite) things than what I was really saying. It's not that I haven't answered your arguments; it's that you don't agree with my answers.

So go argue with yourself; I prefer talking to grown-ups. If it makes you feel better about yourself, I'll even give you permission to think you bested me. In the meantime, if and when you have any interest in actually meeting the arguments I've made (rather than putting arguments in my mouth that I haven't made), let me know.