What should Christian apologists say?

[Eudaimonist]

For the atheist it will have been shaped by evolutionary pressure, selected by what works to make a functioning community.

For some atheists, perhaps. There is no "the atheist" when it comes to views on morality and ethics.

I doubt that there is a "the theist" either.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

An atheist is a member of that subset of the human race that claims there is no God.

They don't have to make the claim. They just have to be unconvinced, and therefore lack that belief.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chris B]

I think this gets at the heart of it: is the atheist capable of producing an objective morality strong enough to judge God?

Well, not if God actually exists.
In that case God gets to set morality.
Which is when you'd better hope for a benevolent and loving deity (that's hardly a given).
And for a deity which keeps its own morality.

From the atheist perspective it is more a matter of looking at the portrait of various gods as depicted in a range of texts, and noting whether their morality fits better into super-human, human or sub-human categories. Strong examples of the last two can be considered as possible evidence for the accounts of god or gods to be of human origin.
(because if we do actually have a cruel or capricious deity then there's not a lot to be done about it.)

On the existence of an adequate morality without a foundation of deity, I know two essentially independent routes to this.
One via evolutionary biology and anthropology, and something as argued by C S Lewis in "The Abolition of Man".(You might call it Mere Humanity...?). The two arrive at very similar final positions.

I find the appeals to "higher thoughts" and "mysterious ways" technically viable but in practice used far too often to cover items suspiciously not "higher" or "mysterious", rather just "dubious" or "appalling".
God as depicted in the OT exercises behaviour and attitudes which would generate charges under the Geneva Conventions, for example on collective and generational punishment.
But if God actually exists, then the deity rules, and something like diplomatic immunity, only much more so, applies.
Paul gets very close to saying just this in his "only clay" argument in Romans 8

 

[Eudaimonist]

I think this gets at the heart of it: is the atheist capable of producing an objective morality strong enough to judge God?

Not so much producing as recognizing. And I don't see why not, though I'm not quite sure what you mean by "strong enough". I suppose you mean "sound enough".

I'll assume here that you don't mean that human beings would be "strong enough" to punish God in some way.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chris B]

For some atheists, perhaps. There is no "the atheist" when it comes to views on morality and ethics.

I doubt that there is a "the theist" either.


eudaimonia,

Mark

It's a fair cop.
I usually try to avoid universal statements unless I mean them, which is not that often.
But I missed that one.

 

[zippy2006]

Not so much producing as recognizing.

Sure.

And I don't see why not, though I'm not quite sure what you mean by "strong enough". I suppose you mean "sound enough".

I'll assume here that you don't mean that human beings would be "strong enough" to punish God in some way.

I explained that here.

 

[zippy2006]

Thinly veiled threats of destruction from a god that had no need to create me doesn't make it more desirable to worship it: quite the contrary

Stop taking food and you will similarly be destroyed.

Growing in maturity does not equal growing in perfection or even to it, because it isn't a complete sequence: adulthood is not the end, it's a stage in an overall cycle.

Semantics.

Only enhances my point: imperfection and impermanence are part of life: perfection is a fleeting idealistic dream. Why seek perfection when you can realistically seek excellence without delusions of grandeur?

Suffering is part of life. Why seek to avoid it when you can realistically seek excellence without delusions of grandeur?

And your arguments are so great? They've been found wanting at every turn: twisting things to fit your preconceived notions is not new apologetics, it's the common strategy in general, because you can't countenance a world where your meaning might have to involve some actual work

At least I make them. You just posture.

 

[muichimotsu]

Stop taking food and you will similarly be destroyed.



Semantics.



Suffering is part of life. Why seek to avoid it when you can realistically seek excellence without delusions of grandeur?



At least I make them. You just posture.

One can live without food for about 2 weeks, by some assessments. The body will slowly destroy itself, but that's a scientific fact, your God analogy in terms of food fails because you can't demonstrate it

You're still committing the etymological fallacy, you're not getting around that by deflecting back to me

Who's avoiding suffering? Your strawman doesn't work when you're putting words in my mouth

Never claimed I was making an argument, I was picking apart the crap you spew because it's not exactly cogent or structured in a way that even makes sense, except to those who already buy into it

 

[muichimotsu]

Such as?



Such as?

Beyond limitations we have on things being causally dependent, but not beyond moral expectations we have of the world, such as murder being innately wrong, among other things. The Euthypro dilemma still remains, trying to deflect around it by special pleading or requalifying things just tends towards making the deity more superfluous than it already was

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And your arguments are so great? They've been found wanting at every turn: twisting things to fit your preconceived notions is not new apologetics, it's the common strategy in general, because you can't countenance a world where your meaning might have to involve some actual work

Ouch.

 

[muichimotsu]

Harshness is not unwarranted when someone can reasonably comprehend it without perceiving it as an insult.

 

[zippy2006]

Harshness is not unwarranted when someone can reasonably comprehend it without perceiving it as an insult.

That's true, yet I don't see how what you said is meant to be anything other than insulting.

But only someone you respect can insult you, and in the context of apologetics I only respect those who are both rational and respectful, presenting arguments without excessive rhetoric, emotion, or obfuscation. If you have arguments, they're well-hidden. All I've seen is a religious chip on your shoulder, a short wick, and something resembling temper-tantrums. I was hoping for a bit more. I guess "right speech" and "equanimity" are still on your Buddhistic to-do list?

 

[muichimotsu]

Phrasing is where the nuance comes in, but there's also a natural limitation in conveying the purest feelings in an online post, no matter how articulate you may be.

My point is that people shouldn't just assume their position is right without critical thought and certainly not without the consideration that they could be wrong, even in a moderated fashion.

If there is a God, or an entity like it, I could accept it, albeit I fail to see why I should worship it merely because it exists. You'd have to demonstrate the validity of claims that Jesus died for alleged sins, was divine in nature, etc, for me to even consider those as compelling.

Just using presuppositional apologetics or even a structure of argumentation that utilizes basic logical fallacies as if they're acceptable in the context of religious truth, aren't signs of a reasonable mind, but one that wants a system that answers all their questions and leaves them with no reason to think outside it.

You haven't met me in real life, you're taking a very limited view of my general perspective and speech and extrapolating it far beyond what you could rationally be expected to do.

Also, you're taking the label too much at face value. Honestly, I don't have any particular attachment, Buddhism just works at the moment. You could just as easily call me atheist, but that's not a religion, it's a perspective on religion at best, so it's a misnomer, same as calling it a faith. Not buying into CF's ridiculous category system, so I use this , even though people can just as easily misconstrue that, but at least then I can assess their stupidity when they say I worship Buddha or a statue, where I imagine you don't characterize Buddhism in that sense, if my understanding is remotely correct.

 

[Chris B]

Harshness is not unwarranted when someone can reasonably comprehend it without perceiving it as an insult.

Taking out the double negative (yes, I'm aware of the nuance)
"Harshness is warranted when someone can reasonably comprehend it without perceiving it as an insult."

I'm not sure the "reasonably comprehend" ever works as a permit for harshness, owing to erring on the safe side, except for someone we know very well. Thus we tend to be able to say things to real friends that would not pass as civilized language with anyone else. A mere estimate of whether it will be taken as insulting is surely not good enough.

I suggest harshness is reserved for sheer necessity, not just convenience or emotional relief.
Alongside shouting.

 

[muichimotsu]

Problem is that this isn't spoken words, so the tone and such isn't perceived nearly as easily as in conversation

 

[Chris B]

Problem is that this isn't spoken words, so the tone and such isn't perceived nearly as easily as in conversation

I actually prefer printed text. I don't have to process it in real-time and it comes (for me) stripped of unnecessary and distracting side-band signals: tone, volume, accent... and even more on video or real face-to-face communication.

 

[Hieronymus]

Biblical.

Yes, but then how do you show the Bible is accurate?
You'll need extra-Biblical evidence to show the Bible is accurate and credible.
So you need apologetics, based on evidence and preferably facts.

 

[Hieronymus]

Apologetics for a Theistic God should be a starting point for an atheist, and once the existence of God is established, we can then move to the Bible,

For which you need more apologetics, to make a case for its credibility which establishes the Christian faith.
This is not too hard.
The hard part is getting people to listen and keep them listening despite their cognitive dissonance...
Then they can weigh the evidence, verify etcetera..

 

[Hieronymus]

I'm sure you realize that the Bible doesn't impress non-believers.

I think the Bible scares the hell out of most people.
Just look at how they try to dismiss it.

 

[Hieronymus]

They don't have to make the claim. They just have to be unconvinced, and therefore lack that belief.

No, that's an agnostic.