There are “Christian atheists” like John Spong, Don Cupitt, and D. Z. Phillips who think we should continue to observe Christian rituals even though we no longer believe in the dogmas which underwrite them. They still attend church, gaze a stained glass windows depicting Bible stories they deny, sing traditional hymns they don’t believe a word of, then take communion to commune with a nonexistent God. It’s one of those odd situations where everything changes, yet nothing changes. They proclaim the death of God, then they go back to church next Sunday.
We have a parallel situation in atheism. There are infidels who frankly or even proudly admit that there’s no such thing as objective moral norms. Yet having said that, they think we ought to turn the page and act as if they never said that. We should revert to business as usual, as though it makes no difference. But, of course, it makes all the difference in the world. Once you say that, there is no going forward. That’s not something you can skip over or get beyond. At that point there’s nothing worthwhile to talk about.
Hector Avalos says he’s a moral relativist, but he thinks that’s okay cuz, according to him, the Christian is a moral relativist as well. The only difference is that he’s honest about his moral relativism. He’s come clean. How admirable!
But why be honest about a position that negates the obligation to ever be honest? Avalos is like a guy who triumphally exclaims: “Sure, I’ll be dead from radiation poisoning in under 12 hours, but, hey, you’ll be dead from radiation poisoning, too!”
The description of Spong, et al., sounds like the description of a zombie. I think that's apt.
ReplyDeleteI suppose the atheists have a bit of zombie-ism in them as well.
Must have something to do with being fueled by the spirit of disobedience, dead in sin.
Reminds me of a story told by Sproul:
ReplyDeleteWhen R. C. became a Christian, in his college years, he was cut to the quick by the derision and mockery of a deeply admired longtime friend of his, an atheist. Upon learning of Sproul's conversion, this "friend" trashed the Faith, trashed R. C. for being so stupid as to buy into it, and essentially disowned R. C. then and there. Young Sproul was still licking his wounds that Sunday when, during worship, he was stunned to spot among the congregation that same bitterly hostile atheist, standing and reciting heartily the Apostle's Creed with the assembly.
uh, yeah, Francis Schaeffer said all this before. But that doesn't prove anything. All you've shown is that there is a strong psychological trap that even atheists habitually fall into- that of believing in moral realism.
ReplyDeleteSo hats off to exposing Avalos' hypocrisy, but you haven't advanced a centimeter in proving your case about moral realism.
And for the record, if we meet by accident and you punch me in the face and steal my wallet, I'll have you prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Not because I believe you really wronged me in an objective sense, but because I'm enraged at you.
I didn't attempt to prove moral realism in my reply to Avalos. That was never my aim. And I didn't have that burden of proof. It was sufficient to demonstrate the absurdity of his charge against Manata et al.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, proof is only obligatory if moral realism is true. If you reject moral realism, then it's not incumbent on me to prove anything. So you're falling into the same trap.
Thnuh said:
ReplyDelete---
And for the record, if we meet by accident and you punch me in the face and steal my wallet, I'll have you prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Not because I believe you really wronged me in an objective sense, but because I'm enraged at you.
---
What are the odds that, in the process, you'd slip into morally objective language, since you just can't help it? "That's not right! You ought not punch someone and take their wallet." Etc.
Presumably Thnuh Thnuh would be just as likely to become enraged with you over your preference of ice cream flavors, Peter.
ReplyDeleteChoose carefully...
In Him,
CD