While my personal faith journey snapshots have thus far been focused on my struggles to reconcile the Bible with science, I think the next few will look at my struggle with the doctrine that the Bible was written by human men through divine inspiration.

In the mean time, in the context of recent world violence I keep hearing that this country (meaning the U.S.A., even though I’m writing this from Canada, because part of my heart is still there) was founded on Biblical principles… or the Ten Commandments, specifically.

While everyone acknowledges that the Bible was written by human authors, did you know that there is one small section where God physically wrote the words himself?

The Lord said to Moses, “Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke. (Exodus 34:1)

Now there is some confusion here, in that verses 27-28 have Moses physically writing the words rather than God, but perhaps God forgot a chisel or it was more of a 50’s-secretary-dictation-style writing attribution. But the interesting point here is that these words are not the same as the first set of tablets from chapter 20.

Let’s compare the first and second drafts here.

Exodus 20 Exodus 34

1

You shall have no other gods before me. Do not worship any other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.

2

You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments. Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land; for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to them, they will invite you and you will eat their sacrifices. And when you choose some of their daughters as wives for your sons and those daughters prostitute themselves to their gods, they will lead your sons to do the same.

3

You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name. Do not make any idols.

4

Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. Celebrate the Festival of Unleavened Bread. For seven days eat bread made without yeast, as I commanded you. Do this at the appointed time in the month of Aviv, for in that month you came out of Egypt.

5

Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you. The first offspring of every womb belongs to me, including all the firstborn males of your livestock, whether from herd or flock. Redeem the firstborn donkey with a lamb, but if you do not redeem it, break its neck. Redeem all your firstborn sons. No one is to appear before me empty-handed.

6

You shall not murder. Six days you shall labor, but on the seventh day you shall rest; even during the plowing season and harvest you must rest.

7

You shall not commit adultery. Celebrate the Festival of Weeks with the firstfruits of the wheat harvest, and the Festival of Ingathering at the turn of the year. Three times a year all your men are to appear before the Sovereign Lord, the God of Israel. I will drive out nations before you and enlarge your territory, and no one will covet your land when you go up three times each year to appear before the Lord your God.

8

You shall not steal. Do not offer the blood of a sacrifice to me along with anything containing yeast, and do not let any of the sacrifice from the Passover Festival remain until morning.

9

You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor. Bring the best of the firstfruits of your soil to the house of the Lord your God.

10

You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor. Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk.

Some of these line up, so those must be the really important ones… have no other gods, make no idols and rest on the Sabbath. Are there federal laws for these founding principles?

If we are to interpret the Bible in such a way that latter revelation takes precedence over prior revelation, like the New Testament over the Old, then the chapter 34 set must be the more important set.

I’m doing OK on not putting Passover leftovers into the fridge, keeping my blood sacrifices yeast-free, and avoiding land treaties with prostitutes. I have been remiss on some festival celebrations (if you know me, you know I don’t take many holidays) and bringing my soil firstfruits (I grow only lawn grass, does that count?) to church.

Even among the first set, only two of the commandments are laws… murder and theft. And prohibition against these predates the Bible, and extends further back to many social animal species including wolves, elephants and primates. (Maybe the “false testimony” is a law, if you interpret that in purely a court-of-law setting as opposed to general lying.) It is difficult to see any of these tablet-inscribed instructions and lending significant unique foundation to any western nations.

But “do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk” sneaks in at number 10. While that does seem cruel, was it a big enough problem to be in the top 10 items personally written by the hand of God?

Just imagine if “no human should own another human” had made the list. Or the lives that could have been saved with “wash your hands before you eat and after you pass waste from your body”.

The U.S.A. could have been a much better place much sooner, if not for all those sociopathic goat boilers.

Advertisements

12 thoughts on “This Country was Founded on Principles of Ethical Goat Boiling

  1. IF WE ARE TO INTERPRET THE BIBLE IN SUCH A WAY THAT LATTER REVELATION TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER PRIOR REVELATION, LIKE THE NEW TESTAMENT OVER THE OLD, THEN THE CHAPTER 34 SET MUST BE THE MORE IMPORTANT SET.

    You may be having some fun, but I’m afraid this assumption would not at all be correct. Contextually, examining the history of the Hebrew people you would see that laws or rules add not replace. This is why by the time of Jesus there were rules upon rules ad nauseam. Moreover, in Exodus 34:1 which you quoted it says that God was going to write the words that were on the first tablets. The words on the first tablets were not getting replaced. Finally, the reason the New Testament replaced the Old was because a New Covenant was being made, the direct result of the work of Jesus.

    I’ll see your goat boilers and raise you the 10 Commandments.

    Like

  2. I think a more interesting / important question is what would the Atheist tablets have read … Oh right, there would be none. That’s because as you have pointed out previously the Atheist has rejected God and His external absolute truth and chosen subjectivity as a guide. Truth as a subjective experience means that there is no universal truth for all to follow. Sure you can verify facts that are consistent, like gravity, which apply to all but they have no bearing on morality.

    In a recent episode of The Walking Dead, there was a group of people hiding in a town surrounded by walls. They had normalized life like it was before all the bad things happened. Then, another group of people break through their walls and start killing everyone. In Atheistic thought, this new group could be just as right as the first, so theoretically the town’s people should have not even resisted them. Just because a group of people share some morality does not make it any more right than one individual who would hold an opposing view. More to the point, in a world where truth is subjective there no longer is right or wrong.

    This brings us to our previous discussion on meaning and value of life. If truth is subjective so is meaning and value of life. Your answers to your questions you posted:
    ALL THINGS FINITE ARE POINTLESS? MOMENTARY KINDNESS IS POINTLESS? LEARNING A SKILL THAT YOU DO NOT PASS ON IS POINTLESS? ENJOYING THE BEAUTY OF A MOMENT IS POINTLESS?

    These all of course would be true (in Atheistic thought). Just because you choose to give value to them does not in any way give them universal value. In fact someone valuing the opposite could be just as right. So, ultimately you are living in a fairy tale to think that the things you may value have any real meaning. This is the hopelessness I was pointing out previously, or in Atheist thought what Voltaire, Sartre, and Nietzsche recognized as the pointlessness of everything in an Atheistic world. Failure to recognize the end result of Atheistic thought amounts to nothing more than a Quasi-Atheist, someone that picks and chooses what they want from the world view. This would make you no more an Atheist than someone that goes to church every week makes them a Christian.

    So would the end of slavery be at the hands of Atheists? No. In Atheistic thought slavery could be just as right as no slavery. We do see though that God went beyond what the Atheist or culture of the time, He mandated freedom for the slaves every 7 years (Ex 21.2). Moreover, as you progress through the Old and Testament you see an increased concern for the wellbeing of the slaves. It becomes apparent that equality which is given to women, and those less fortune applies to the slaves as well. I seem to remember Christian (most if not all) Abolitionists ending slavery.

    Like

    1. I THINK A MORE INTERESTING / IMPORTANT QUESTION IS WHAT WOULD THE ATHEIST TABLETS HAVE READ … OH RIGHT, THERE WOULD BE NONE. THAT’S BECAUSE AS YOU HAVE POINTED OUT PREVIOUSLY THE ATHEIST HAS REJECTED GOD AND HIS EXTERNAL ABSOLUTE TRUTH AND CHOSEN SUBJECTIVITY AS A GUIDE.

      An atheist believes in no god. Your usage of the word “rejected” would need to be taken in the same sense that you, personally, have rejected Thor, Zeus and Allah.

      That said, a quick Google search for “humanist ten commandments” brings up many lists that I find far superior to either of the lists posted above from Exodus. Any of those will do for a tablet. (Not all atheists are humanists, but all humanists are atheists.)

      TRUTH AS A SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE MEANS THAT THERE IS NO UNIVERSAL TRUTH FOR ALL TO FOLLOW. SURE YOU CAN VERIFY FACTS THAT ARE CONSISTENT, LIKE GRAVITY, WHICH APPLY TO ALL BUT THEY HAVE NO BEARING ON MORALITY.

      Physical laws cannot be broken. What you call “universal truths” can be broken. I find that amusing.

      IN A RECENT EPISODE OF THE WALKING DEAD, THERE WAS A GROUP OF PEOPLE HIDING IN A TOWN SURROUNDED BY WALLS. THEY HAD NORMALIZED LIFE LIKE IT WAS BEFORE ALL THE BAD THINGS HAPPENED. THEN, ANOTHER GROUP OF PEOPLE BREAK THROUGH THEIR WALLS AND START KILLING EVERYONE. IN ATHEISTIC THOUGHT, THIS NEW GROUP COULD BE JUST AS RIGHT AS THE FIRST, SO THEORETICALLY THE TOWN’S PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE NOT EVEN RESISTED THEM. JUST BECAUSE A GROUP OF PEOPLE SHARE SOME MORALITY DOES NOT MAKE IT ANY MORE RIGHT THAN ONE INDIVIDUAL WHO WOULD HOLD AN OPPOSING VIEW. MORE TO THE POINT, IN A WORLD WHERE TRUTH IS SUBJECTIVE THERE NO LONGER IS RIGHT OR WRONG.

      I absolutely agree 100% with every single thing you wrote here, though I would encourage you to watch the episodes again. The walled community was not living in reality. They covered their eyes and ignored what they didn’t want to see. They turned a blind eye to internal abuses. They did their children a great disservice by not preparing them for the one life they have. I’m with Rick.

      SO, ULTIMATELY YOU ARE LIVING IN A FAIRY TALE TO THINK THAT THE THINGS YOU MAY VALUE HAVE ANY REAL MEANING.

      Your invisible magic friend who was foiled by a talking snake makes your view real and mine a fairy tale. Gotcha.

      FAILURE TO RECOGNIZE THE END RESULT OF ATHEISTIC THOUGHT AMOUNTS TO NOTHING MORE THAN A QUASI-ATHEIST, SOMEONE THAT PICKS AND CHOOSES WHAT THEY WANT FROM THE WORLD VIEW. THIS WOULD MAKE YOU NO MORE AN ATHEIST THAN SOMEONE THAT GOES TO CHURCH EVERY WEEK MAKES THEM A CHRISTIAN.

      You don’t seem to understand what atheist means. The lack of belief in a god. Nothing more. No world view at all. May I point you to https://chromosometwo.wordpress.com/2015/11/03/the-a-word-and-why-i-use-it/ ?

      Note that absolutely nothing you’ve said here in any way addresses the truth of Christianity… only assertions about its usefulness.

      SO WOULD THE END OF SLAVERY BE AT THE HANDS OF ATHEISTS? NO. IN ATHEISTIC THOUGHT SLAVERY COULD BE JUST AS RIGHT AS NO SLAVERY. WE DO SEE THOUGH THAT GOD WENT BEYOND WHAT THE ATHEIST OR CULTURE OF THE TIME, HE MANDATED FREEDOM FOR THE SLAVES EVERY 7 YEARS (EX 21.2). MOREOVER, AS YOU PROGRESS THROUGH THE OLD AND TESTAMENT YOU SEE AN INCREASED CONCERN FOR THE WELLBEING OF THE SLAVES.

      So, you would agree with me that the Bible doesn’t represent an objective morality, but one that evolves completely in subjective relation to how humanity around it becomes better. That’s great. We have common ground.

      IT BECOMES APPARENT THAT EQUALITY WHICH IS GIVEN TO WOMEN,

      Ha ha ha ha ha. Sorry, I thought you said the Bible grants equality for women. Funny.

      AND THOSE LESS FORTUNE APPLIES TO THE SLAVES AS WELL. I SEEM TO REMEMBER CHRISTIAN (MOST IF NOT ALL) ABOLITIONISTS ENDING SLAVERY.

      I’d encourage you to Google “did Abraham Lincoln believe in God” and visit the historical consensus. (Spoiler: it’s no.)

      Many Christians (and Muslims, and Jews, and Buddhists, etc.) perform moral deeds and care well for others, but this evolving morality has nothing to do with an objective morality, nor what is actually written in the Bible. It has changed over time.

      In 500 B.C. Confucius wrote, “Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself.” Egypt had a similar concept from their godess Maat by 2050 B.C., as did India, Greece and others by early Old Testament times. It was good of the New Testament writers to catch up.

      The single greatest force against “good” is adherence to holy books, including yours. I would gladly take the secular atrocities of history over the religious ones (though we might disagree over which are which, and I’d have to ask you to Google). I would more than gladly take secular humanist morality over any “objective” theistic morality.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. YOU DON’T SEEM TO UNDERSTAND WHAT ATHEIST MEANS. THE LACK OF BELIEF IN A GOD. NOTHING MORE. NO WORLD VIEW AT ALL.
        I’m sorry, buy you are failing to see that there are consequences to the decision to not believe in God. The greatest of these is that there is no objective source of truth. Truth has become subjective, and in reality there is no longer right or wrong. You throw around words like “atrocities” when in the Atheist world there is no concept of such a thing. If there is no right or wrong, good or bad, an atrocity is not in the vocabulary because it implies that there is a good and a bad.

        Point two is that with truth subjective, although humanists may come up with a nice list
        http://americanhumanist.org/HNN/details/2013-10-the-humanist-ten-commandments
        they are ultimately meaningless and pointless. Just because you write them down does not make them true. If I hold an opposing view I could be just as “right” as you.

        Where does this leave you? A world where there is no right or wrong, and you have no “right” to judge the choices of others. The rapist, murderer, genocidal manic, all could be equally true and “right” choices for them. When it comes to your choices for meaning and values if the opposite could be equally as true and right then what actual value do any of them have? None, they are when we boil it down pointless.

        Until you fully recognize the consequence of no God and therefore no source of an external absolute truth, you are still living with the town’s people oblivious to reality.

        Like

  3. Clayton writes… “UNTIL YOU FULLY RECOGNIZE THE CONSEQUENCE OF NO GOD AND THEREFORE NO SOURCE OF AN EXTERNAL ABSOLUTE TRUTH, YOU ARE STILL LIVING WITH THE TOWN’S PEOPLE OBLIVIOUS TO REALITY.”

    Any alleged consequence of “no god” lends no evidence of any kind to the existence / reality of a god.

    Like

  4. ALLEGED CONSEQUENCE
    There is no “alleged” this is simple logic, simple enough for even me to connect the dots. If you would challenge me to evaluate my faith logically, I could do no less for you.

    LENDS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND TO THE EXISTENCE / REALITY OF A GOD.
    It does show the depravity of the Atheist position. Moreover, if as I have argued above that there can be no objective moral values (or intrinsic worth) without the existence of God, and you would hold that objective moral values do exist this would mean that there must be a God. I would say that it has the potential to offer evidence that God exists. Others could more eloquently fill in the details I’m sure.

    Like

    1. IF YOU WOULD HOLD THAT OBJECTIVE MORAL VALUES DO EXIST THIS WOULD MEAN THAT THERE MUST BE A GOD. I WOULD SAY THAT IT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO OFFER EVIDENCE THAT GOD EXISTS.

      I hold no such position. I do not accept that objective moral values exist. I see neither evidence nor utility for such a thing. Subjective morality produces the better results, as far as I can tell.

      As YouTube AntiCitizen X recently challenged Christian moral realists…

      1. Name a single example of any definite, objective moral value or duty.
      2. Prove it.

      Perhaps you think, “it is objectively wrong to kill babies”? Prove the truth of that proposition. What axioms and rules of inference do you use to arrive at this conclusion? What truth assignment functions do you use, and why?

      As you explain, please note…

      A. Personal intuition and feeling is subjective. (quite literally the most subjective)
      B. Human consensus is still subjective. (Remember when we all liked slavery?)
      C. The positive/negative consequences of an action are subjective.
      D. You can’t mention God, since you are attempting to use objective morality to prove God.

      Like

  5. Thank you for explaining eloquently and in more detail what I have already argued is the consequence and the futile position the Atheist finds themselves in morally.

    SUBJECTIVE MORALITY PRODUCES THE BETTER RESULTS, AS FAR AS I CAN TELL.

    “BETTER RESULTS”? That sounds objective to me, sorry you can’t say that.

    Moreover, I’m not sure you understand what “SUBJECTIVE MORALITY” really means. Subjective morality means that Hitler’s Holocaust was ok (there is no right or wrong), genocide in Darfur was ok, murder, rape, and yes killing babies is ok. Go ahead, personalize these to happening to the people you “love” and know. Please provide justification as to how these are ok.

    AS YOUTUBE ANTICITIZEN X RECENTLY CHALLENGED CHRISTIAN MORAL REALISTS…
    1. NAME A SINGLE EXAMPLE OF ANY DEFINITE, OBJECTIVE MORAL VALUE OR DUTY.
    2. PROVE IT.

    Perhaps I’m oversimplifying things, it’s a matter of psychological testing (I’m sure there’s published examples, although I haven’t looked). If we take a look at loss aversion, and boil it down to the fact that we as humans regardless of age (infant to elderly) respond negatively to something we perceive to be ours (an object, a person, innocence, etc) being taken away from us. This is a repeatable and verifiable result. We could then say that as a repeatable, verifiable result it is objective. The corresponding objective moral is then don’t steal. Hmm, that sounds familiar…

    Like

    1. I think you need to have these handy, for reference…

      OBJECTIVE:
      based on facts rather than feelings or opinions : not influenced by feelings
      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective

      SUBJECTIVE:
      based on feelings or opinions rather than facts
      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subjective

      “BETTER RESULTS”? THAT SOUNDS OBJECTIVE TO ME, SORRY YOU CAN’T SAY THAT.

      “Better” is literally one of the most subjective words in the English language. It has meaning only in relation to another thing, and has no objective meaning without relative comparison.

      MOREOVER, I’M NOT SURE YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT “SUBJECTIVE MORALITY” REALLY MEANS. SUBJECTIVE MORALITY MEANS THAT HITLER’S HOLOCAUST WAS OK (THERE IS NO RIGHT OR WRONG),

      To Hitler it was ok. It is not ok to me. Subjective!

      (Also, Godwin’s Law! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law )

      GENOCIDE IN DARFUR WAS OK,

      To the government of Sudan it was. Not to me. Subjective!

      Bible God demanded genocide of the Amalekites. (Subjective? Objective?)
      https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Samuel+15%3A2-3&version=NIV

      MURDER, RAPE, AND YES KILLING BABIES IS OK.

      Subjective! Some people find these things moral, depending on circumstance.

      Bible God demanded murder. (Subjective? Objective?)
      https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=NUMBERS+31%3A17-18&version=NIV

      Bible God OKs rape. (Subjective? Objective?)
      https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+21%3A10-14&version=NIV

      Bible God commands baby killing. (Subjective? Objective?)
      https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hosea+13%3A16&version=NIV

      GO AHEAD, PERSONALIZE THESE TO HAPPENING TO THE PEOPLE YOU “LOVE” AND KNOW.

      You’ve just identified subjective morality. We feel these things are wrong when they affect our family, our tribe, our country. You’ve appealed to emotion. Subjective!

      PLEASE PROVIDE JUSTIFICATION AS TO HOW THESE ARE OK.

      I did not assert they are OK. Or that they are not OK. You asserted objective morality. You made the positive claim. Where is your evidence? You seem to be arguing the opposite.

      WE AS HUMANS REGARDLESS OF AGE (INFANT TO ELDERLY) RESPOND NEGATIVELY TO SOMETHING WE PERCEIVE TO BE OURS (AN OBJECT, A PERSON, INNOCENCE, ETC) BEING TAKEN AWAY FROM US. THIS IS A REPEATABLE AND VERIFIABLE RESULT. WE COULD THEN SAY THAT AS A REPEATABLE, VERIFIABLE RESULT IT IS OBJECTIVE.

      Once again, you’ve appealed directly to the emotion of the victim as evidence. This is the exact opposite of objective.

      THE CORRESPONDING OBJECTIVE MORAL IS THEN DON’T STEAL. HMM, THAT SOUNDS FAMILIAR…

      I find stealing to be among the least compellingly objective immoral assertions. Is it moral to steal to survive? Is it moral to steal bread so that a child survives? Many say yes. One of the most popular stories in the world, Les Misérables, is based on just how grey theft morality can be.

      Like

      1. GODWIN’S LAW- Lol- The illustration is pertinent to the discussion though 🙂

        ONCE AGAIN, YOU’VE APPEALED DIRECTLY TO THE EMOTION OF THE VICTIM AS EVIDENCE. THIS IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF OBJECTIVE.

        No, perhaps I was unclear. Just because the subjects have feelings (emotion) this in no way is objective. What is objective is the scientific process. If the results are consistent, repeatable, predictable, the results I can then state objectively based on the facts (I believe you have already stated something to this effect in a previous discussion). Although there is no good or bad in the Atheist world, we can still measure whether the response of the subject was positive or negative for that individual. The objective moral value still stands.

        I FIND STEALING TO BE AMONG THE LEAST COMPELLINGLY OBJECTIVE IMMORAL ASSERTIONS.
        Whether it is compelling or not I just had to prove one, if there is one then Atheist thought fails. There is in fact an external objective truth, there is absolute truth … there is evidence of God.

        IS IT MORAL TO STEAL TO SURVIVE?
        The only way this question can be asked is if morality is subjective. Ironically, if the one stealing to survive had what they had stole stolen, their response would be the same as I identified above. With objective moral values, just because they are inconvenient doesn’t make them any less true for the moment. Even if I steal to survive, stealing is still wrong. It does not change just because I want it to.

        Like

  6. Clayton —

    JUST BECAUSE THE SUBJECTS HAVE FEELINGS (EMOTION) THIS IN NO WAY IS OBJECTIVE. WHAT IS OBJECTIVE IS THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS. IF THE RESULTS ARE CONSISTENT, REPEATABLE, PREDICTABLE, THE RESULTS I CAN THEN STATE OBJECTIVELY BASED ON THE FACTS (I BELIEVE YOU HAVE ALREADY STATED SOMETHING TO THIS EFFECT IN A PREVIOUS DISCUSSION).

    Objective study of a subjective subject does not make the subject objective. I can hyper-accurately count the number of people who like country music, but that would have no bearing at all on the objective quality of said music. Or perhaps a survey of the growing population who hold to the flat Earth theory.

    If you want to claim that consistent physiological response implies universal morality, then you will have also proven that…
    – all consensual sexual activity is objectively moral
    – invasive medical procedures are objectively immoral
    – cake and chips are moral, where kale and broccoli are immoral
    – social animals like dogs, hamsters and apes have equal morality to humans

    I trust this illustrates the fallacy of your argument. How someone feels or reacts, by definition, has no bearing at all on objectivity.

    WHETHER IT IS COMPELLING OR NOT I JUST HAD TO PROVE ONE, IF THERE IS ONE THEN ATHEIST THOUGHT FAILS. THERE IS IN FACT AN EXTERNAL OBJECTIVE TRUTH, THERE IS ABSOLUTE TRUTH … THERE IS EVIDENCE OF GOD.

    I’m sorry, sir… but you didn’t prove one. In fact, I could swear you are still arguing AGAINST objective morality. Something objective holds true even if everyone on the planet feels differently.

    If you think you proved it, I understand why you have confidence your theistic position.

    Like

    1. t would seem that I find myself in the Princess Bride where I say … truly you have a dizzying intellect…

      OBJECTIVE STUDY OF A SUBJECTIVE SUBJECT DOES NOT MAKE THE SUBJECT OBJECTIVE. I CAN HYPER-ACCURATELY COUNT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO LIKE COUNTRY MUSIC, BUT THAT WOULD HAVE NO BEARING AT ALL ON THE OBJECTIVE QUALITY OF SAID MUSIC.

      Agreed. But the results of the study are objective. If you discovered that 80% of the people liked country music (I’m speaking theoretically here), those results are facts, they are objective. You are correct that it speaks nothing to the objective quality of the music. The same can be said about what I have posed earlier. A study on the responses of individuals to personal loss either positive or negative speaks nothing to the objective quality of the responses, rather it is just the recorded facts, the objective observations of the responses. Just like any scientific process we could then, based on the collected facts, make a conclusion … which would be objective.

      But, the Atheist objects, how can you determine what would be positive or negative considering morality is subjective? Good point. It doesn’t really matter whether we determine if the response is positive or negative, we can just measure whether there is any response at all. As we measure the results would show that there is a psychological response. Seeing that a there is a repeatable, consistent result in all the subjects we could then make an objective conclusion. The conclusion would be objective, considering the facts collected, that with loss there is a universal psychological response. So we could conclude then if it is universal then the response must be objective, the degree of the response still being subjective.

      Whoa, says the Atheist, how can you say that it is universal have you tested everyone? Current scientific practice is to test a smaller sample and derive its understanding from the test subjects to arrive at conclusions to then test further. Whether you use loss aversion, the endowment effect, or Divestiture Aversion, or I’m sure many other related studies all point the above conclusion. Well, the Atheist counters, unless all of humanity is tested and conforms to your conclusion you can’t say that.

      Rant begin…

      Here we see the Atheist Bar raising trapping. In my observations of Atheist discussions a common trapping seems to be that the bar of expectable proof continues to move as evidence contrary to their opinion arises. Common practice of logic and scientific process no longer applies. Another example of this would be the Bible. First, the Bible is touted as a book full of stories, not historically reliable. But wait, there is archeological evidence of people, places and events in the Bible. Just because you write some history into a book doesn’t make it true the Atheist retorts. Hmm, I see. Okay, standard practice when examining historic reliability of recorded events is that the more independent sources there are that corroborate the event the greater the probability that the event transpired. There are actually a plethora of manuscripts corroborating the New Testament events. Wait, the Atheist says, those are all from Christians who would have ulterior motives they can’t be trusted. Well, here is source not Christian … sorry that is unacceptable as well.

      Don’t get me wrong, I understand fully why it is happening. Yes Christians have made a claim, there is a God and He and His works are accurately described in the Bible. As with any logical claim the Christian is responsible for providing evidence for this claim. Of course there is the same requirement for the Atheist who makes the claim that there is no god. Any hypothesis whether for the affirmative or negative needs to be proven. The potential easiest way for the Atheist to prove their claim is to disprove the Christian who makes the outrageous claim that the Bible is infallible word of God. Ironically, even if they were able to prove the Bible as false (which I see as remote), they would then need to disprove the existence of all the other “gods”. How do you disprove the existence of God? It’s not possible. How do you prove the existence of God? This could possibly be unattainable as well if not for the audacious claim from the Christians that the Bible is the word of God. If this is true then there would be evidence of God. It looks like the only game in town for the Atheist is to prove the Bible wrong and hope everyone ignores the fact that this does nothing to prove their claim.

      … Rant over

      IF YOU WANT TO CLAIM THAT CONSISTENT PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSE IMPLIES UNIVERSAL MORALITY, THEN YOU WILL HAVE ALSO PROVEN THAT…
      I said nothing about physiological responses, and the psychological response I indicated was very specifically chosen and I neither implied nor suggested that it applied to all psychological responses. Moreover, just because I choose one psychological response I am in no way required to do the same for all psychological responses.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s