Atheism & objective morality: Franc28 vs. Jason Gastrich

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

This thread has been set up for a formal debate between Franc28 and Jason Gastrich on the following resolution:

Resolved: Objective morality is only compatible with the atheistic worldview.

Franc28 will go first, taking the affirmative and Jason Gastrich will oppose. The debate will go for 7 rounds as agreed to from the parameters (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=81295).

A Peanut Gallery (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=1533329#post1533329) is set up in the Moral Foundations & Principles forum for the rest of us to comment on the debate.

Good luck to both participants!

Jason

[Francois Tremblay]

Before I begin, I would like to thank IIDB for hosting and moderating this debate, and Dr. Jason Gastrich for accepting to debate me on this issue, an issue that I consider vital to any individual who desires to be a moral person.

The topic of the debate is "Objective morality is only compatible with the atheistic viewpoint". I am arguing from the atheistic viewpoint, and asserting the positive. My name is Francois Tremblay, and I am the writer of "Handbook of Atheistic Apologetics", as well as the Suite101 columnist for Atheism and Rational Spirituality.

Since I have a great number of points to cover in this opening case, I will not tarry more than necessary.



Circumscribing the issue

What do we mean when we say "objective morality" ? Morality is the study of action, of what makes right and wrong conduct. And a feature of our understanding is objectively justified if it is justified outside of human desires, emotions, whims, and so on : in short, subjective standards. In accordance with this, Dr. Gastrich points out himself that :

"Webster's dictionary defines the term objective like this: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind; expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations. (...) Objective history does not change. It cannot change."
From http://www.jcsm.org/biblelessons/Objectivity.htm

The terms of the debate, therefore, are clear and simple. For a system X to be an objective moral system, it must :

* pertain to standards of action (i.e. be able to meaningfully and coherently distinguish right and wrong conduct).
* be objective (i.e. its standards must be determined outside of our own desires, emotions, whims, and so on).

Furthermore, objective morality leads to moral obligation. If there are objective moral standards which we should all follow, then we can meaningfully blame someone for not following them. I think most of us agree with this implicitly, as we do recognize merit and blame for individual actions, although we may not agree on the specific attribution.

We know in philosophy that everyone has a sense of morality, implicitly or explicitly. Everyone holds an implicit moral system. If no one had any moral preference whatsoever, then people would not be likely to survive, since survival requires conscious, directed action. If we do not eat, eventually we will die. If we do not drink water, we will die even faster. If we blatantly break the social mores of decency or peaceful behaviour in our relationships with others, our life will be endangered.

If we make it explicit, is that sense of morality objective ? Yes, it is based on causality. Our need to eat or drink is a fact of reality that exists independently from our mind, and so are the psychological principles at work behind society. They are as much a part of the fabric of reality as gravity or magnetism.

This much is not under contention : the atheist and the Christian both agree on these points. If we ask both why they are eating, both will immediately realize the causal links underlying their actions. Some people simply deny causality outright, but it is not common.

But Dr. Gastrich and I hold more in common than this view. We both agree, not only that some form of objective morality is necessary, but that there is such a thing as a systematic objective morality.

We also, I assume, agree that the alternative is absurd. Speaking from my perspective, I think it is fairly obvious that subjective morality is extremely unsatisfactory as a position. If morality can only be subjective, then it is no more knowledge than any other subjective position. If there is to be knowledge about morality, then it must be objective, that is to say, based on Reason : beyond that, we must remain silent.



Atheism is compatible with objective morality

Some atheists propose biological evolution as a rational justification of the existence of morality. However, this is a confusion, as it implies that evolutionary adaptation returns rational moral results. But we already know that psychological adaptations are based on a non-directed process, and are based on the human species and environment as it existed millions of years ago. Even if the evolutionary process was flawless from our perspective, it would hardly make the moral instincts of a tribal, status-based species living in an ancestral environment, devoid of almost all technology, applicable to today's world.

Objective morality is compatible with atheism, as an extension of the implicit and necessary morality that I have described earlier. In this perspective, the one I uphold, causality and contextuality are the two grounds on which objective morality rests.

Contextuality expresses the fact that an action does not exist in a vacuum. An action is performed within a specific context which makes it effect specific values. If we take this contextuality out of the picture, then we are no longer talking about morality, we are talking about doctrine.

To give a more concrete example, the simple action of eating food can effect a great number of different values. Eating almost always provides nutrition, but sometimes eating serves a role of socialization, or can become a perverse psychological defense mechanism. If one eats poisonous food, eating can also be a risk to one's very survival. As such, while the fact of nutrition is undeniable, any absolutist moral judgment on eating would be a misguided endeavour.

Values concretize the facts of reality that give rise to moral judgment - the facts of biology, human nature, and our environment. A virtue is a disposition of our character which permits us to act consistently in a moral manner, that shapes our moral character in a positive manner.

Using values to evaluate actions in their context gives us a moral system that is meaningful, coherent and objective. This makes the atheistic worldview compatible with objective morality. By using virtues such as rationality, integrity, honesty, pride, autonomy, justice, non-coercion, benevolence, and others, we ensure that our moral character is explicitly righteous, and that we are moral individuals.



The claim of incompatibility

The epistemic issue at hand can be illustrated by 1 Thessalonians 5:21 : "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

If only Christianity is compatible with objective morality and moral obligation, then we must hold fast to Christian principles, if we are to be moral. If only atheism is compatible with objective morality and moral obligation, then we must hold fast to atheistic principles, if we are to be moral. This is, therefore, the issue at hand.

As I pointed out before, most atheists and Christians acknowledge that reality exists and has a causative influence on humans. However, Christianity differs in ontology because it also posits a supernatural realm, with God as its focus. All Christians believe in God as Creator, saviour, and therefore as foundation of all moral concerns. Because of this, God becomes an overriding moral concern. This is what derails Christians from reality and into dogmatic moral corruption.

I am a strong-atheist : I hold as knowledge that there cannot be anything to which the god-concept refers. But the argument here is not merely that God doesn't exist. Even granted that, the Christian could still point to a moral system that can exist independently from the god-concept. The incompatibility we are discussing is rather that the Christian moral system is both non-meaningful and non-coherent, as well as non-objective.

I will now examine the arguments that prove this incompatibility.



Materialist argument

The necessary Christian belief in divine creation provides the most acute problems for compatibility.

If divine creation is true, and God is omniscient and omnipotent, then all facts of material reality are continually contingent to God's will. But that means that morality is also continually contingent on God's will. If God decides that murder is good, then murder becomes good. This is obviously absurd : murder cannot be good in all cases, and yet God could make it so. It also makes any theistic moral system subjective, as they depend on God's mind.

Secondly, Christian doctrines are specifically incompatible with objective morality and moral obligation. The reason for this resides in the fact of the Christian afterlife, which is purported to be eternal benefit to the believer. That is the benefit that Christians hope to achieve by their belief, which overrides, in their eyes, all the negative effects of said belief. If this afterlife is an eternal benefit, then its moral weight is infinite. No earthly benefit or loss can possibly compare to it, not even death.

But the eternal benefit of salvation in Christianity is achieved not by works, but by belief. Thus, morality becomes irrelevant, and the believer is not held morally responsible for his actions. Even the worst criminal or tyrant is saved, if he professes belief in his heart before dying. Since any moral blame one can attribute the criminal is irrelevant compared to the infinite moral weight of salvation, no one can attribute moral blame to any Christian criminal, if his belief is correct. Therefore, Dr. Gastrich has no grounds for his belief in moral obligation.

Also, the existence of an eternal afterlife denies morality itself, which is based on the finiteness of our lives. We need morality because our lives are finite and demand concerted rational action in order to preserve and enrich them. Without such limits, morality loses all meaning. But if nothing can help further the individual's potential of survival, because of this eternal afterlife, then morality cannot exist from a Christian perspective.

This argument can also be extended to God himself. God is by definition infinite and limitless. God cannot have any emotions, desires or needs. God is not affected by anything and can put anything into effect. Because of this, God cannot be moral in any way whatsoever. We would have to say that such a being has to be amoral - i.e. its actions cannot be judged as good or wrong conduct.

But these divine actions also include the creation of a moral system for man. If God has no reason to do anything, then by corollary he has no reason to create a moral system for man. Therefore the presumption that God has created a moral system for man contradicts God's supposed infinite and limitless nature.

By putting God at the foundation of his axioms and moral system, the Christian crowds away the necessary nature of reality. The refusal of Christians to admit that reality is what it is, leads them to believe all kinds of absurdities, from the primary of non-existence to the contingency of morality. Atheism and materialism are the only reasonable answer.



Christian morality is incoherent

Now, one must be careful not to attribute me too strong of an argument. I am certainly not saying that Christians cannot act in accordance with rules of good conduct. As I detailed earlier, evolution does explain the existence of a moral sense that most human beings share, including Christians. And it is certainly a possibility that Christians copy some of their behaviour from atheistic standards. However, it is impossible for Christians to get their morality from Christianity. The presumed Christian moral system is incoherent, does not pertain to the facts of morality, and is inconsistent with a rational analysis of reality.

The Bible contradicts itself even on fundamental structural issues :

One should retaliate to evil in an equal manner : Deuteronomy 19:21
Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
One should let evil men continue their evil : Matthew 5:38
You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Our moral judgments must put the interest of others on the same level as ours : Leviticus 19:18
'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.
Our moral judgments must put the interest of others above ours : 1 Corinthians 10:24
Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others.

Here are some other specific major contradictions in the Bible on the subject of morality :

God makes incest a crime : Leviticus 20:17
If a man marries his sister, the daughter of either his father or his mother, and they have sexual relations, it is a disgrace. They must be cut off before the eyes of their people. He has dishonored his sister and will be held responsible.
God blesses an incestuous union : Genesis 17:15-16
God also said to Abraham, "As for Sarai your wife, you are no longer to call her Sarai; her name will be Sarah. I will bless her and will surely give you a son by her. I will bless her so that she will be the mother of nations; kings of peoples will come from her."

God makes graven images a crime : Exodus 20:4
You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.
God orders the making of graven images : Exodus 25:18
And make two cherubim out of hammered gold at the ends of the cover.

God orders to honour one's father and mother : Exodus 20:12
Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.
God came to Earth to turn children against their parents : Matthew 10:35-36
For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law-- a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.

Don't eat fat or blood : Leviticus 3:17
'This is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come, wherever you live: You must not eat any fat or any blood.'
What you eat cannot be sinful : Matthew 15:11
What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.'

These are only a few of the major moral contradictions of the Bible. Together they show that Christian morality contradicts itself routinely on major principles.

If Dr. Gastrich wishes to attempt to present a non-contradictory account of Christian morality (both in structure and content), he is free to do so. However, I contend that he will be unable to do so.



Christian morality contradicts the Christians' assumptions

Most Christians would claim that Christianity upholds moral principles such as love, justice, peace, and so on. Dr. Gastrich may or may not share those claims. But the fact that the Bible, and the facts of Christian belief, do not justify such claims, show that Christian morality cannot be followed by most Christians.

Does the Bible support human rights ? Jesus and his disciples encouraged slavery (Matt 10:24-25, John 13:16, 1 Peter 2:18-20, Ephesians 6:5-9, Colossians 3:22-24), the Bible supports capital punishment for all kinds of actions such as cursing or hitting one's parents (Leviticus 20:9, Exodus 21:15), being a witch (Exodus 22:18), bestiality (Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 20:15-16), breaking the Sabbath (Exodus 31:14, Numbers 15:32-36), adultery (Leviticus 20:10), homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13), worshipping other gods or hate God (Deuteronomy 6:14-15), Deuteronomy 7:9-10), and so on and so forth.

Does the Bible promote "family values" ? As I pointed out before, Jesus said he came to Earth to divide families (Matthew 10:35-36) and said that men should leave their families to preach (Luke 18:29-30). The Bible forbids relationships between relatives (Leviticus 20:17) and between men (Leviticus 20:13), and makes the man the head of the household (1 Peter 1-3). In short, the only family values being promoted are the kind of family that Christians want.

Does the Bible support capitalism, economic and scientific progress ? Jesus said that only the poor may go to Heaven (Mark 10:25) and supported taxation (Luke 20:24-25). As we have seen, he also supported slavery, and so does the Bible. Christianity is based on faith and doctrine, which are both anti-science, and has opposed scientific discoveries and still does today. The Bible itself says to reject worldly education (1 Corinthians 1:19,26-27) and proposes as doctrine a great number of anti-scientific beliefs, starting from the belief in the Creation of all things, down to beliefs about genetics (Genesis 30:37-43) or medicine (Leviticus 14:33-57).

It is difficult for an impartial mind to see the Bible as anything more than hate speech. I do not know if Dr. Gastrich shares the Bible's position on these issues. Maybe he does, maybe not. But once again, the fact that most Christians do not agree with these positions proves that the Christian moral system cannot be followed, and therefore is useless as a standard.

God also provides a moral example. God encourages genocide, while forbidding killing. God demands people to follow the Sabbath, while Jesus claims it is not needed. According to the Bible, God's omnibenevolence includes wiping out the entire population of the Earth, killing his own followers a number of times, advocating capital punishment for all kinds of victimless crimes, and condemning unbelievers to eternal torment, even though the obviousness of its existence is unavailable to most people.

These facts come to bear on the matter because the Christian claims that God's conduct is the best possible, and as such it presents an example of the highest standard that a Christian should maintain. That example seems to be one of almost infinite and cruel evil, from a rational perspective.

In the same way, the stories in the Bible show people being guided in their actions by God himself. Indeed, that is how the Bible is said to have been written. But people today who claim to use revelation from God are considered insane, even by most Christians. By this, Christians disprove their own epistemology, and thus the basis for their own supposed moral system.

Christians routinely try to excuse God's evils by claiming that "God is good by definition" or that "good is a higher standard that encompasses God", and that this means we should not question. But as we have seen in the materialist arguments, claims of omnibenevolence are meaningless since God, if he existed, would be amoral by definition.



Christian morality does not pertain to morality and is non-objective

I have briefly described contextuality. Since it pertains to this argument, I should elaborate a bit further.

Contextuality expresses the fact that an action does not exist in a vacuum. When we examine an action, we cannot ignore that the action takes place in a given context. The action of "killing" effects very different values whether it involves killing someone who has a gun trained on you, killing an innocent person walking down the street, killing an animal for food, killing a spider that entered the house, and so on and so forth. In each case, the being that is killed, the state of ourselves and the being, the actions necessary to perform, are all very different and lead to different results. In one case, our life is saved. In the other, we are a criminal.

If we take contextuality out of the picture, then we are no longer talking about morality. We have taken away a part of reality which directly pertains to moral judgment. That is to say, we are no longer talking about morality, we are talking about a mental abstraction which has no more relation to action in the real world.

We are no longer talking about reality, either. At least in that portion of the moral judgment, we are talking about doctrine. We have let subjectivity enter the picture, in our belief in the ultimate authority of the doctrine to replace context.

Christianity is one such doctrine which removes contextualism. All the moral rules of Christianity are not based on values, or virtues, or context, but on absolutist statements. To continue our example, the sixth commandment states "Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20:13). This statement makes no reference to values, virtues or context : it posits a class of actions and stuffs them all in the same moral judgment. All killing is evil. This is the pronouncement, literally from the heavens. No more thinking is required on the issue.

This lack of contextualism in Christianity proves that Christian moral systems cannot pertain to morality. They pertain to a fantasy where context does not exist.

In practice, we also observe a lack of stability in Christian morality. Things that were once forbidden, are now accepted. The social enslavement of women, the belief in slavery, repression of various scientific discoveries, intolerance towards other religions, respecting the Sabbath, not celebrating various holidays, are all things which today are gone but were accepted as an integral part of Christian morality in the past.

If religion did not eventually adapt to social mores, it would be considered repulsive and would die out. This is a simple fact of memetic evolution. Christian morality has likewise adapted to society. But this proves its non-objective nature. If Christian morality was not inter-subjective in an important way, it would not change to adapt to society.

This last argument may be construed as an argument from popularity. But my claim is much stronger than this. I am not saying that the views of Christian individuals change throughout history : rather, my claim is that what is considered Christian morality changes throughout history. Dr. Gastrich is free to argue that these claims are false, or that the theologians who upheld these various positions were not Christians or were misinterpreting Christianity, but he has to argue with the theologians who upheld these various positions in history, and more importantly with God itself as author of the Bible.



Consequences of Christian amorality

Matthew 7:16 tells us, "Ye shall know them by their fruits". What are the fruits of Christianity ? Christianity's moral and political effects on society are horrible : drug wars, criminality, religious wars, against abortion, babies dying because of religious precepts, capital punishment, hatred against homosexuals, women and other segments of society.

The reliance on faith creates a society of mentally impotent individuals who believe in the paranormal, pseudo-science, and will more readily accept destructive ideologies. Many Christians state that, if they were to become atheists, they would not hesitate to cheat, lie and kill. And yet most atheists do not do these things - in fact, statistics show that atheists are heavily underrepresented in prison populations. It is hard to see this as nothing but Christianity crowding away a person's natural conscience.

Statistics also show that individual Christians are morally inferior or morally equal to atheists on most aspects. According to a study made by Roper Organization, almost twice as many Christians use drugs and commit illicit sex, and more than three times as many Christians drive intoxicated ("Freethought Today", September 1991, p. 12). The divorce rate of atheists is below that of all Christian denominations (Barna Research, December 1999). Christian do less shoplifting, but are almost three times as likely to lie to get jobs, and cheated more in college (Josephson Institute of Ethics, published in the 9/11/93 edition of the San Jose Mercury News).

The bottom line is that atheists are free to find rationality and morality, thanks to atheistic moral freedom. Christians, upholding faith and mental slavery, are not free to do so. Insofar as there is no such thing as an objective Christian morality, the only way Christians can be moral is by imitation or by following their own conscience. If I have made my case here, these standards that most Christians call their own are implicit atheistic standards, not Christian standards.



The proposition that Dr. Gastrich must argue against in this debate is the proposition that only atheistic worldviews are compatible with objective morality. I have presented a great number of arguments in favour of that proposition. I have also presented a general account of objective morality from a realist standpoint.

The premise of atheism makes objective morality possible, by shifting our focus from a meaningless divine realm to our meaningful universe. Dr. Gastrich has no such luxury. If he attempts to free himself from God as a central axiom and premise, then he is no longer a Christian. If he accepts that limitation, then he remains trapped in the results of this meaninglessness : moral confusion and religious evil.

Thank you.

[Silent Dave]

Jason Gastrich, you are advised that you have committed a violation of FD(CS) (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=56983) regulations and debate parameters. The opening statement that you submitted contained 5,070 words, which exceeds the 5,000 word limit agreed upon by you and Francois prior to the start of this debate; it also exceeds the 5,000 word maximum that is placed on any formal debate parameters in FDD.

This is your first rules infraction in this debate; per the FD(CS) regulations, you are given a warning.

The offending post has been deleted, and a new post that does not violate the FD(CS) regulations or debate parameters must be submitted. Your post was made at 3:06 PM CDT, and as I issue this warning it is a few minutes before 6:00 CDT. The deadline for submission of your first statement will therefore be extended by exactly three hours.


Dave

[Jason Gastrich]

Dear IIDB Members, Readers, and Francois,

Welcome to the debate.

My name is Jason Gastrich and I’m an author, lecturer, and the founding director of Jesus Christ Saves Ministries. I’ve written a book called “The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible: Corrected and Explained� that gives nearly 4,000 answers to the tough questions about the Bible.

Thanks to Francois for contacting me and initiating this debate. Thanks to IIDB for hosting it and thanks to you for reading it.

Without further a adieu . . .

Circumscribing the issue

What do we mean when we say "objective morality" ? Morality is the study of action, of what makes right and wrong conduct. And a feature of our understanding is objectively justified if it is justified outside of human desires, emotions, whims, and so on : in short, subjective standards. In accordance with this, Dr. Gastrich points out himself that :

"Webster's dictionary defines the term objective like this: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind; expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations. (...) Objective history does not change. It cannot change."

From http://www.jcsm.org/biblelessons/Objectivity.htm


Very good.

But we already know that psychological adaptations are based on a non-directed process, and are based on the human species and environment as it existed millions of years ago.

I cannot concede that the earth is billions of years old; especially when the evidence says otherwise. Nonetheless, this isn’t the topic of this debate.

Using values to evaluate actions in their context gives us a moral system that is meaningful, coherent and objective. This makes the atheistic worldview compatible with objective morality. By using virtues such as rationality, integrity, honesty, pride, autonomy, justice, non-coercion, benevolence, and others, we ensure that our moral character is explicitly righteous, and that we are moral individuals.

If a person uses “values to evaluate actions in their context,� how does this make “the atheistic worldview compatible with objective morality�? Unless they are based on God’s Word, values are subjective.


If only Christianity is compatible with objective morality and moral obligation, then we must hold fast to Christian principles, if we are to be moral. If only atheism is compatible with objective morality and moral obligation, then we must hold fast to atheistic principles, if we are to be moral. This is, therefore, the issue at hand.

It could be possible for an atheist and a Christian to have the same morals (e.g. don’t murder, don’t lie, etc.). I would affirm that the atheist would be unwittingly following Christian morals and principles, but this happens every day.

As I pointed out before, most atheists and Christians acknowledge that reality exists and has a causative influence on humans. However, Christianity differs in ontology because it also posits a supernatural realm, with God as its focus. All Christians believe in God as Creator, saviour, and therefore as foundation of all moral concerns. Because of this, God becomes an overriding moral concern. This is what derails Christians from reality and into dogmatic moral corruption.

This is surely an opinion.

I am a strong-atheist : I hold as knowledge that there cannot be anything to which the god-concept refers. But the argument here is not merely that God doesn't exist. Even granted that, the Christian could still point to a moral system that can exist independently from the god-concept. The incompatibility we are discussing is rather that the Christian moral system is both non-meaningful and non-coherent, as well as non-objective.

In order to be a strong atheist, one would have to have all of the information available to the universe. For instance, if you want to say that you know that God doesn’t exist, then you must know whether or not God is on the other side of the Earth, or behind the Moon, or resting outside our solar system. Without all of this knowledge, you are simply giving your opinion based on limited information.

I will now examine the arguments that prove this incompatibility.

Materialist argument

The necessary Christian belief in divine creation provides the most acute problems for compatibility.

If divine creation is true, and God is omniscient and omnipotent, then all facts of material reality are continually contingent to God's will. But that means that morality is also continually contingent on God's will. If God decides that murder is good, then murder becomes good. This is obviously absurd : murder cannot be good in all cases, and yet God could make it so. It also makes any theistic moral system subjective, as they depend on God's mind.

God is perfect and true. He has given us His revealed will in the Bible. He does not change and either does His revealed will. In fact, He cannot change or contradict Himself. Therefore, the source of Christian, objective morality is not subjective because it cannot change. A God with a contradictory character wouldn’t make any sense, anyway.

Secondly, Christian doctrines are specifically incompatible with objective morality and moral obligation. The reason for this resides in the fact of the Christian afterlife, which is purported to be eternal benefit to the believer. That is the benefit that Christians hope to achieve by their belief, which overrides, in their eyes, all the negative effects of said belief. If this afterlife is an eternal benefit, then its moral weight is infinite. No earthly benefit or loss can possibly compare to it, not even death.

What do you mean by moral weight?

But the eternal benefit of salvation in Christianity is achieved not by works, but by belief. Thus, morality becomes irrelevant, and the believer is not held morally responsible for his actions. Even the worst criminal or tyrant is saved, if he professes belief in his heart before dying. Since any moral blame one can attribute the criminal is irrelevant compared to the infinite moral weight of salvation, no one can attribute moral blame to any Christian criminal, if his belief is correct. Therefore, Dr. Gastrich has no grounds for his belief in moral obligation.

For a Christian to affirm that morality is irrelevant would be absurd. All throughout the Bible and especially in the teachings of Jesus, we see moral teachings. These include commands to give to the poor, avoid stealing, avoid murder, etc.

The Bible teaches that the “kingdom� of Heaven is exactly that; a kingdom. Heaven will not be the same for everyone. People will be blessed and rewarded based on their obedience to God in their human life. You can see a great number of scriptures for evidence of eternal rewards on this page: http://www.jcsm.org/biblelessons/eternalrewards.htm

Christians not only know that there are eternal rewards for obedience and morality, but we also know that there are blessings and rewards on Earth for this behavior. Therefore, the argument that Christians do not care about morality because it will not effect them either on Earth or in Heaven is false. Obedience = blessings. Disobedience = punishment.

This argument can also be extended to God himself. God is by definition infinite and limitless. God cannot have any emotions, desires or needs. God is not affected by anything and can put anything into effect. Because of this, God cannot be moral in any way whatsoever. We would have to say that such a being has to be amoral - i.e. its actions cannot be judged as good or wrong conduct.

While it is true that an omnipotent God cannot have needs, at least as we perceive and understand “needs,� why do you say that God cannot have emotions? How would His emotion contradict His person as revealed in the scriptures, or better yet, how would His emotion cause Christians to have no objective source of morality?

But these divine actions also include the creation of a moral system for man. If God has no reason to do anything, then by corollary he has no reason to create a moral system for man. Therefore the presumption that God has created a moral system for man contradicts God's supposed infinite and limitless nature.

Who is to say that God has no reason to do anything?

By putting God at the foundation of his axioms and moral system, the Christian crowds away the necessary nature of reality. The refusal of Christians to admit that reality is what it is, leads them to believe all kinds of absurdities, from the primary of non-existence to the contingency of morality. Atheism and materialism are the only reasonable answer.

On the contrary, Christian morality is contingent on God’s revelation in the scriptures. This revelation cannot change. Atheistic morality is contingent on something lesser; which would automatically make it subjective.

What is atheistic morality based on?

Christian morality is incoherent

Now, one must be careful not to attribute me too strong of an argument. I am certainly not saying that Christians cannot act in accordance with rules of good conduct. As I detailed earlier, evolution does explain the existence of a moral sense that most human beings share, including Christians. And it is certainly a possibility that Christians copy some of their behaviour from atheistic standards. However, it is impossible for Christians to get their morality from Christianity. The presumed Christian moral system is incoherent, does not pertain to the facts of morality, and is inconsistent with a rational analysis of reality.

The Bible contradicts itself even on fundamental structural issues :

On the contrary, atheists that do good things are actually giving glory to the Creator without knowing it. They cannot please the Creator without belief in Him, but any good deeds or godly qualities have been mimicked from the ones that are emulating the Creator.

I’m glad you posted some alleged Bible contradictions. I’m an apologist and I’ve found answers to every alleged Bible error and contradiction. I welcome the task of addressing yours.

One should retaliate to evil in an equal manner : Deuteronomy 19:21
Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
One should let evil men continue their evil : Matthew 5:38
You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

First, The passage in Deuteronomy wasn’t written for “one.� It was written to and for the ancient Israelites. Jesus is speaking to the New Testament believers and the church.

Next, the issue in Deuteronomy was a legal issue for the ancient Israelites. Jesus gives a moral response and teaching for the New Testament believers and the church. If you want to see a New Testament doctrine on capital punishment, for instance, see Romans chapter 13.

Our moral judgments must put the interest of others on the same level as ours : Leviticus 19:18
'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.
Our moral judgments must put the interest of others above ours : 1 Corinthians 10:24
Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others.

I’m beginning to see a pattern with your exegesis. You are pulling one Old Testament verse out of context and comparing it to a New Testament verse that you pull out of context. With all due respect, this is a very poor way to interpret and understand the scriptures.

Recently, an atheist approached me and asked about hermeneutics. I hadn’t written anything specifically on the subject of hermeneutics, so I took that opportunity to write 10 hermeneutical tips for understanding the scriptures. Please see them at http://jcsm.org/Education/hermeneutics.htm .

If you read 1 Cor. 10:24 in context and quoted the verses around it, you would understand it more clearly. Here is Adam Clarke’s comments on this verse:
Let none, for his private gratification or emolument, disturb the peace or injure the soul of another. Let every man live, not for himself, but for every part of the great human family with which he is surrounded.

Here are some other specific major contradictions in the Bible on the subject of morality :

God makes incest a crime : Leviticus 20:17
If a man marries his sister, the daughter of either his father or his mother, and they have sexual relations, it is a disgrace. They must be cut off before the eyes of their people. He has dishonored his sister and will be held responsible.
God blesses an incestuous union : Genesis 17:15-16
God also said to Abraham, "As for Sarai your wife, you are no longer to call her Sarai; her name will be Sarah. I will bless her and will surely give you a son by her. I will bless her so that she will be the mother of nations; kings of peoples will come from her."

Which came first? Genesis or Exodus? Why are they reversed in your argument? This is misleading.

The law was given after Abraham’s marriage. The same thing is true of Cain’s wife. You can read more about this situation and the reasons around the incestuous marriages here: http://www.jcsm.org/biblelessons/WhereCain.htm

God makes graven images a crime : Exodus 20:4
You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.
God orders the making of graven images : Exodus 25:18
And make two cherubim out of hammered gold at the ends of the cover.

God told Moses to make cherubim (angelic creatures) to adorn the mercy seat. This was part of the ark of the covenant. This wasn't an idol or something to be worshiped. (Citation: The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible: Corrected and Explained)

God orders to honour one's father and mother : Exodus 20:12
Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.
God came to Earth to turn children against their parents : Matthew 10:35-36
For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law-- a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.

Jesus never states that He came specifically to destroy families. However, He does say that families will be divided over Him.

Jesus brought peace to the ones that repent and trust, believe, and accept Him as their Lord and Savior. However, to those that do not, they will not have peace with God.

Jesus is also emphasizing the need to love and follow Him at all costs.
(Citation: The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible: Corrected and Explained)

In context, we see that Jesus is referring to how the topic of His deity and His mission will divide people and even families.

Don't eat fat or blood : Leviticus 3:17
'This is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come, wherever you live: You must not eat any fat or any blood.'
What you eat cannot be sinful : Matthew 15:11
What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.'

Jesus doesn’t mention eating blood. He doesn’t encourage eating blood. The “unclean� food was widely known and accepted as animals such as pigs, warthogs, etc. Jesus is talking to Christians and emphasizing how a person is defiled by speaking evil; not by eating ham.

Christian morality contradicts the Christians' assumptions

Most Christians would claim that Christianity upholds moral principles such as love, justice, peace, and so on. Dr. Gastrich may or may not share those claims. But the fact that the Bible, and the facts of Christian belief, do not justify such claims, show that Christian morality cannot be followed by most Christians.

Does the Bible support human rights ? Jesus and his disciples encouraged slavery (Matt 10:24-25, John 13:16, 1 Peter 2:18-20, Ephesians 6:5-9, Colossians 3:22-24)

None of these verses condone or encourage slavery.

the Bible supports capital punishment for all kinds of actions such as cursing or hitting one's parents (Leviticus 20:9, Exodus 21:15), being a witch (Exodus 22:18), bestiality (Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 20:15-16), breaking the Sabbath (Exodus 31:14, Numbers 15:32-36), adultery (Leviticus 20:10), homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13), worshipping other gods or hate God (Deuteronomy 6:14-15), Deuteronomy 7:9-10), and so on and so forth.

Capital punishment is wise because it is a deterrent to criminals. In the Old Testament, God held the ancient Israelites to a very high and different standard. They had laws that we do not have as Christians. There is no mention of capital punishment being mandatory for the sins above, today.

For sake of argument, what makes atheistic morality objective based on the Old Testament capital punishment laws given by God? The very fact that these laws were revealed from the Creator is proof that they are objective. Similarly, the fact that atheistic morality is derived from lesser means is proof that atheistic morality is subjective.

Does the Bible promote "family values" ? As I pointed out before, Jesus said he came to Earth to divide families (Matthew 10:35-36)

This is a very poor characterization of Jesus’ mission. This doesn’t even interpret Matthew 10:35-36 properly.

and said that men should leave their families to preach (Luke 18:29-30).

Let’s look at these verses. They read, “So He said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or parents or brothers or wife or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, 30who shall not receive many times more in this present time, and in the age to come eternal life.�

Jesus is clearly talking to the people that left their families to follow Him and learn from Him during His brief ministry on Earth. He is telling the people that since they have decided to follow God’s Messiah for 3 years or less, which was the duration of Christ’s ministry (even less from Luke 18 onward), they would be rewarded for it.

The Bible forbids relationships between relatives (Leviticus 20:17)

Leviticus 20:17 reads, “‘If a man takes his sister, his father’s daughter or his mother’s daughter, and sees her nakedness and she sees his nakedness, it is a wicked thing. And they shall be cut off in the sight of their people. He has uncovered his sister’s nakedness. He shall bear his guilt.�

This verse is condemning perversion; not relationships. I hope you’re relationships don’t involve seeing your relatives naked.

and between men (Leviticus 20:13),

Yes, homosexuality is forbidden. God gave us the plan for marriage with Adam and Eve and in many other parts of the Bible. Homosexuality goes against His revealed plan for marriage and sex.

and makes the man the head of the household (1 Peter 1-3). In short, the only family values being promoted are the kind of family that Christians want.

This is an absurd conclusion. First, you quoted two verses that were written about 2,000 years before the word “Christians� was invented. Next, what does the revelation of God have to do with the “wants� of Christians? First, there was the revelation of the Creator, THEN there was the obedient Christian.

Does the Bible support capitalism, economic and scientific progress ? Jesus said that only the poor may go to Heaven (Mark 10:25)

You are incorrect. This verse reads, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.�

Many times, Jesus gave the gospel message. Taking this one verse out of context and spinning it isn’t the way to discover or articulate the gospel message that Jesus Christ gave. You can see about the gospel message here: http://gospel.jcsm.org

and supported taxation (Luke 20:24-25).

Virtually everyone supports taxation.

As we have seen, he also supported slavery, and so does the Bible.

No, He didn’t. And no, we haven’t seen this.

Christianity is based on faith and doctrine, which are both anti-science, and has opposed scientific discoveries and still does today.

Would you care to give some examples?

We have science as we know it today because of Christians. See this long list of Christians that made discoveries in the sciences and gave us science as we know it. Link: http://www.jcsm.org/Contents/Famous.htm

The Bible itself says to reject worldly education (1 Corinthians 1:19,26-27)

These verses are contrasting godly wisdom with worldly wisdom. Those that don’t follow God and get their wisdom from Him are getting their “wisdom� from lesser sources; from subjective sources.

and proposes as doctrine a great number of anti-scientific beliefs, starting from the belief in the Creation of all things,

I never considered the theory of creation as anti-scientific. Regardless of whether or not one could consider a Creator creating all things as anti-scientific or not, it has not effected any scientific discovery adversely. Furthermore, the wide variety of abiogenesis theories based on subjective interpretations of subjective data are surely no more objective than affirming biblical creation by a Creator God. In fact, biblical creation is an objective fact while other, competing theories - none of which can be proven by observation - are subjective and poor.

down to beliefs about genetics (Genesis 30:37-43) or medicine (Leviticus 14:33-57).

These passages describes miracles from God. Science may or may not be able to explain them.

It is difficult for an impartial mind to see the Bible as anything more than hate speech. I do not know if Dr. Gastrich shares the Bible's position on these issues. Maybe he does, maybe not. But once again, the fact that most Christians do not agree with these positions proves that the Christian moral system cannot be followed, and therefore is useless as a standard.

The Bible tells us to hate evil. There are a number of things that God hates and we should hate them as well. Here is a list: http://www.jcsm.org/biblelessons/hatethese.htm

The diversity of opinions within the realm of Christianity doesn’t argue for subjectivity. If it did, then the diversity of opinions within atheism would argue for its subjectivity. There is one truth and different people see this truth in different ways. They can interpret and apply it differently. It doesn’t change the one, objective truth, though.

God also provides a moral example. God encourages genocide, while forbidding killing. God demands people to follow the Sabbath, while Jesus claims it is not needed. According to the Bible, God's omnibenevolence includes wiping out the entire population of the Earth, killing his own followers a number of times, advocating capital punishment for all kinds of victimless crimes, and condemning unbelievers to eternal torment, even though the obviousness of its existence is unavailable to most people.

Since you gave rapid fire arguments, I’m going to give you a rapid fire rebuttal. If you want me to expand on anything, then please let me know.

God never forbade all killing. He did lead the Israelites into war. God gave the Israelites the Sabbath law and Jesus told the New Testament believers how to interpret this law.

God is perfect and He holds the right to judge His creation when they turn to sin. He may even judge them by taking their lives.

God gave capital punishment laws to the ancient Israelites. Those laws were for them and they were not for New Testament Christians.

In the same way, the stories in the Bible show people being guided in their actions by God himself. Indeed, that is how the Bible is said to have been written. But people today who claim to use revelation from God are considered insane, even by most Christians. By this, Christians disprove their own epistemology, and thus the basis for their own supposed moral system.

The Bible is a closed canon. New scriptures are not being added to it because we already have God’s entire and sufficient revelation.
Christianity is one such doctrine which removes contextualism. All the moral rules of Christianity are not based on values, or virtues, or context, but on absolutist statements. To continue our example, the sixth commandment states "Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20:13). This statement makes no reference to values, virtues or context : it posits a class of actions and stuffs them all in the same moral judgment. All killing is evil. This is the pronouncement, literally from the heavens. No more thinking is required on the issue.

This word “kill� refers to murder. This verse is telling the ancient Israelites that they were disallowed to murder. Therefore, there is a context revealed.

In practice, we also observe a lack of stability in Christian morality. Things that were once forbidden, are now accepted. The social enslavement of women, the belief in slavery, repression of various scientific discoveries, intolerance towards other religions, respecting the Sabbath, not celebrating various holidays, are all things which today are gone but were accepted as an integral part of Christian morality in the past.

Even a lack of stability wouldn’t taint an objective moral framework given by God. Why would human failure effect God’s objective laws? Why would it indicate that there was no law? Humans break the law every day. This doesn’t mean that the law doesn’t exist.

Would you mind elaborating on your claim that Christianity repressed various scientific discoveries?

If religion did not eventually adapt to social mores, it would be considered repulsive and would die out. This is a simple fact of memetic evolution. Christian morality has likewise adapted to society. But this proves its non-objective nature. If Christian morality was not inter-subjective in an important way, it would not change to adapt to society.

You may have a point here, but this paragraph didn’t develop it very well. How has Christianity adapted to social mores?

If people 2000 years ago interpreted the scriptures, for instance, as saying slavery was ok and people today interpret the scriptures as saying slavery is forbidden, how does that change the law from Almighty God? Can’t it be argued that the objective, moral law always existed, but was only obeyed recently?

. . . my claim is that what is considered Christian morality changes throughout history. Dr. Gastrich is free to argue that these claims are false, or that the theologians who upheld these various positions were not Christians or were misinterpreting Christianity, but he has to argue with the theologians who upheld these various positions in history, and more importantly with God itself as author of the Bible.

Why would a deviant interpretation of the scriptures be God’s fault? If you have the ability to call black white, then you have the ability to misinterpret the scriptures; and it is not God’s fault. It’s your fault. Likewise, an objective moral standard from God doesn’t have to be followed in order to exist. It only has to be recognized.

Matthew 7:16 tells us, "Ye shall know them by their fruits". What are the fruits of Christianity ? Christianity's moral and political effects on society are horrible : drug wars, criminality, religious wars, against abortion, babies dying because of religious precepts, capital punishment, hatred against homosexuals, women and other segments of society.

This argument could likely go in circles for a long time; bringing up people who were atheists and people who were Christians that did terrible things. However, as I’ve been stating, this isn’t a very good test for the existence of an objective, moral standard. People can’t follow subjective moral laws. Why would you expect them to be able to perfectly follow an objective moral law? Both exist. Both aren’t perfectly followed.

Incidentally, the most powerful nation in the world was founded by Christians and is touted as a “Christian nation.� We still don’t have universal healthcare, though. *wink*

. . . statistics show that atheists are heavily underrepresented in prison populations. It is hard to see this as nothing but Christianity crowding away a person's natural conscience.

I’d be happy to analyze and discuss this prison population data if you present it.

I’ve lived in the South for a couple of years and I’ve driven across the U.S. several times. I’ve discovered that a great number of people call themselves Christians because the either go to church once a week or because their family belongs to a church. In other words, simply because a prisoner says they are a Christian, it doesn’t mean they are and it surely doesn’t mean that their prison sentence is due to the lack of an objective moral standard. It simply means that they broke the law.

Statistics also show that individual Christians are morally inferior or morally equal to atheists on most aspects. According to a study made by Roper Organization, almost twice as many Christians use drugs and commit illicit sex, and more than three times as many Christians drive intoxicated ("Freethought Today", September 1991, p. 12). The divorce rate of atheists is below that of all Christian denominations (Barna Research, December 1999). Christian do less shoplifting, but are almost three times as likely to lie to get jobs, and cheated more in college (Josephson Institute of Ethics, published in the 9/11/93 edition of the San Jose Mercury News).

I have a psychology degree and I know how statistics can be skewed to fit one’s own agenda. I see you quoted atheist literature. Do you have any neutral literature to verify this claim? Were there any other statistics taken? You only listed a handful of things.

At any rate, this is a rabbit trail. People meeting and obeying God’s objective standard is not the requirement for it to exist.

Atheistic morals must be subjective because they can only be based on a changing, human standard; regardless of whether or not they can follow it.

Sincerely,
Jason Gastrich

[Francois Tremblay]

Before beginning my rebuttal, I would like to briefly discuss strong-atheism. Dr. Gastrich has made a rather bold claim :

"In order to be a strong atheist, one would have to have all of the information available to the universe. For instance, if you want to say that you know that God doesn’t exist, then you must know whether or not God is on the other side of the Earth, or behind the Moon, or resting outside our solar system. Without all of this knowledge, you are simply giving your opinion based on limited information."

Without realizing it, he is revealing his anti-scientific attitude. Science makes universal statements all the time. For instance, does Dr. Gastrich disagree with the law of gravity ? If he agrees with it, how can he know matter attracts proportionally to mass and inversely to the square of the distance, if he has not been on the other side of the Earth, or behind the Moon, or outside of our solar system ?

How about contradictory entities ? Does Dr. Gastrich seriously think that square-circles, or invisible pink unicorns, or meaningless concepts such as "fdjkaslds" or "erwqiuo" could exist outside of our solar system, despite their meaningless or contradictory nature ? Could Dr. Gastrich please point out what it would mean for a square-circle, or invisible pink unicorn, or a fdjkaslds, or an erwqiuo, to exist ?

Meaningless or contradictory entities cannot exist. The concept of "god" comes under that same umbrella. To attempt to deny this would be a self-contradictory attempt to deny logic.



Materialist argument

In answer to the fact of divine creation making morality contingent, Dr. Gastrich claims that "God is perfect and true", and that therefore it cannot change or contradict himself. That is his claim : he must prove it. The god of the Bible certainly changes its mind on numerous occasions (for instance, when Jesus claimed he would come back, in Matthew 16: 27-28). The god of the Bible certainly also contradicts itself on numerous occasions, some of which I have included in my opening case.

But these objections are secondary. The main problem with this kind of ad hoc rationalizing is that Dr. Gastrich has no evidence whatsoever to make these claims. His assertion that "God is perfect and true" is merely that, an assertion, and a meaningless one at that. If he is trying to formulate an objection here, he needs to formulate a meaningful and supported objection.

Interestingly, Dr. Gastrich does contradict himself later on by saying "Christian morality is contingent on God’s revelation in the scriptures". He does claim afterwards that this revelation cannot change, but once again he has no reason to say so. Maybe he is fooling himself, or being fooled by an agent of evil (I presume that he believes in such things). He has no grounds to disentangle himself from such possibilities, and therefore his theology can hardly be taken seriously.

Likewise, Dr. Gastrich asserts that a Christian must uphold morality, or his position is absurd. But he gives no evidence for this view, except to claim that following Christian moral behaviour (which he cannot even define meaningfully) will give you rewards. How is that so ? What is his evidence for that assertion ? No such reward is apparent. Christians are no better off than non-Christians - and in many areas, such as moral behaviour, they seem handicapped.

The argument still stands : salvation, being an eternal benefit, must have infinite moral weight. Therefore the Christians' actions here on Earth, except for belief in Christianity, cannot carry any weight. Dr. Gastrich is trying to smuggle an importance, a weight, to Christianity morality, where it is unwarranted by the evidence.

As for the lack of moral justification for God, Dr. Gastrich seems to be confused. I am not arguing that the Christian conception of God does not include emotions. My argument pertains to God's infinite nature and its incompatibility with emotions. Unless Dr. Gastrich does not think that God is infinite, he has no reason to be confused.

I see no way for Dr. Gastrich to get out of these problems, as long as he is a Christian and upholds a subjective will as his central premise. Apparently he does not either, since he is forced to resort to sheer assertions. Apparently he does not understand that a debate does not consist solely of giving one's opinion, but an exchange of arguments and objections starting from those opinions.

He also seems to be confused on the topic of the debate. He asks : "What is atheistic morality based on?". I never claimed that atheism in itself necessarily entails any moral system. This is not a debate between all atheists and all Christians. The topic of this debate is whether these positions are compatible with objective morality, not whether they necessarily entail any such system. I think I have given a sufficient account of how objective morality works from a specifically rational atheistic perspective : if he has objections to that account, he should give those objections.



The Bible's account of morality

I have used numerous Bible verses to show that Christian morality is incoherent and contradicts the standard Christian assumptions. In answer to these, instead of trying to account for the facts, Dr. Gastrich tries to explain the word of God away.

Let's look at the two structural points I have raised (I deleted blank lines for readability).

The verses :
"One should retaliate to evil in an equal manner : Deuteronomy 19:21
Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
One should let evil men continue their evil : Matthew 5:38
You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

His response :
"First, The passage in Deuteronomy wasn’t written for “one.� It was written to and for the ancient Israelites. Jesus is speaking to the New Testament believers and the church.
Next, the issue in Deuteronomy was a legal issue for the ancient Israelites. Jesus gives a moral response and teaching for the New Testament believers and the church."

How does Dr. Gastrich think he has answered to the point at all ? Stating who the verse was written or spoken to, does not change the nature of the statements in question. If I told Dr. Gastrich that I am an atheist, and told another person on a thread somewhere that I am a Christian, and Dr. Gastrich asked me to account for this contradiction, how would it make me less guilty of a contradiction if I reply that I was not talking to him in that latter instance ? I would justifiably be called a liar.

Furthermore, it is impossible that one can be a legal issue only for the Israelites, while another one can only be a legal issue for the New Testament believers. They both pertain to the exact same issue, i.e. how to retaliate to evil. This is an issue that applies to all people at all time. His "explanation" here is a red herring.

The verses :
"Our moral judgments must put the interest of others on the same level as ours : Leviticus 19:18
'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.
Our moral judgments must put the interest of others above ours : 1 Corinthians 10:24
Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others."

His response :
"I’m beginning to see a pattern with your exegesis. You are pulling one Old Testament verse out of context and comparing it to a New Testament verse that you pull out of context. With all due respect, this is a very poor way to interpret and understand the scriptures.
(...)
If you read 1 Cor. 10:24 in context and quoted the verses around it, you would understand it more clearly. Here is Adam Clarke’s comments on this verse:
Let none, for his private gratification or emolument, disturb the peace or injure the soul of another. Let every man live, not for himself, but for every part of the great human family with which he is surrounded."

Not only is he boasting that he sees a "pattern" of taking verses out of context, but he can't even explain why ! His interpretation from Adam Clarke only makes my point that 1 Corinthians 10:24 asks for us to put the interest of others above ours. What part of "not" in "Let every man live, not for himself" does he not understand ?

This so-called hermeneutics of his is nothing more than red herrings. He even goes to such absurdity as to claim that God's law is temporal ("The law was given after Abraham’s marriage") and denies the very text of Matthew 10:35-36 ("Jesus never states that He came specifically to destroy families"). But at least he does admit his immoral beliefs on capital punishment, homosexuality and taxation.

On what grounds does he hold those immoral beliefs ? Because the Bible says so. But Dr. Gastrich obviously does not follow the Bible on many other moral rules, including those in the same books than the rules on capital punishment and homosexuality ! So where is his objectivity ?

Dr. Gastrich, do you wear mixed fibers, or eat shellfish ? If you do, then why do you hate homosexuals ? Where is the objectivity that you flaunt in this very debate ?

Dr. Gastrich's refusal to accept the Word of God is rather in bad taste, and seems to me more like a running joke than a debate tactic. If he has any serious hermeneutics to present, he should do so, instead of resorting to red herrings. I am not here to teach him how to read plain english, I am here to debate morality.

When I state that statements in the Bible contradict the moral beliefs of most Christians, he replies :
"The diversity of opinions within the realm of Christianity doesn’t argue for subjectivity. If it did, then the diversity of opinions within atheism would argue for its subjectivity."

Apparently he has once again forgotten the topic of this debate. The topic is whether Christianity, or atheism, is compatible with objective morality. It is not about whether Christians or atheists agree with each other (indeed, many atheists love to complain about anyone who holds principles, and the same is true for Christians). My arguments show that the propositions that are said to pertain to Christian morality in the Bible cannot and are not followed. Atheism has no doctrine dictating such propositions, and therefore is not contradicted by this analogy.



Rationalizing God's actions

When presented with Bible events that contradicts science, he claims : "These passages describes miracles from God". Well, that may or may not be the case, but even if that is so, he still has not shown how these passages are not anti-scientific. They reject scientific facts by divine intervention instead of by sheer ignorance. How does the method of contradiction change the contradiction ? Whether he likes it or not, leprosy does not transmit through clothes or houses, and you cannot change the genome of a sheep by showing its progenitors striped rods while they are mating. His ad hoc rationalizations for these Bible events are completely irrelevant.

Furthermore, for Dr. Gastrich to even claim that miracles are possible means he considers himself omniscient. Without such omniscience, how could he know that these "miracles" cannot be explained by natural laws, even some we have not yet discovered ? In his arrogance, he seems to put himself on God's pedestal.

Dr. Gastrich tries to rationalize away his god's behaviour by saying this :

"God never forbade all killing. He did lead the Israelites into war. God gave the Israelites the Sabbath law and Jesus told the New Testament believers how to interpret this law."

Does Dr. Gastrich seriously expect us to believe that God changes his mind ?

"God is perfect and He holds the right to judge His creation when they turn to sin. He may even judge them by taking their lives."

Apparently Dr. Gastrich thinks perfect justice can be compatible with eternal torment for finite crimes. I'd like to see him try to explain that one.

Furthermore, what does it say about Dr. Gastrich's moral character that he tries to rationalize infinite suffering and torment for billions of individuals, with assumptions ? Does he believe that he can rationalize making other human beings suffer by simply assuming that he is doing good ?

"God gave capital punishment laws to the ancient Israelites. Those laws were for them and they were not for New Testament Christians."

Not only does that confirm the divine support for capital punishment (claiming it only applied at one point in time does not erase its existence), but the deduction is an irrelevant red herring. The existence of grave crimes applies to all time. Homicide exists even today, Dr. Gastrich.

He also claims that revelation is no longer applicable because we have all the scriptures there should be. How does he know that ? The Bible was assembled by man, its books were chosen by man, not God. Why cannot man decide otherwise ? God is said to have revealed them, just as he is revealing things to other Christians today, and could decide to reveal more scriptures to Christianity. Why cannot God decide otherwise ? Is Dr. Gastrich saying that man, or God, does not have the capacity to do these things ? That much is absurd. And in fact people today do create new versions of the Bible.



Christian morality's absolutism

Dr. Gastrich's sole objection to the supposed Christian morality not pertaining to moral facts, is to claim that God revealed context by revealing his laws. I cannot make sense of this objection. How does this process give context where there is none ? There is no contextual consideration in "thou shalt not kill", however it was revealed or discovered.

His answer to my argument that Christian morality has changed in history is more substantial, but not by much. He claims that this reflects merely a change in opinion and a "deviant interpretation of scriptures", not in objective truth. But this only proves the point : since there is no objective morality present in the Bible, how could these opinions converge ? Converge towards what ? Theologians came to their conclusions based on their social context. Once again, if he wishes to claim that his interpretation is correct and all others are wrong, he needs to disprove theologians of all other eras, not me.

It is also interesting to note that Dr. Gastrich directly contradicts himself on this issue. First he claims that supposed past moral errors (which he cannot prove, given that his hermeneutics are completely irrelevant) were the result of bad interpretation, and then claims that the law was "only obeyed recently". But this confuses the issue : certainly the law was "obeyed", even though people had a different theological interpretation of it. Unless Dr. Gastrich contends that Christians were not following the Bible as such, and now are doing so, he is trying to obfuscate.



Consequences of Christian amorality

Dr. Gastrich seems to think that I am trying to bring up people who are moral and people who are not. I did no such thing. What I did was present social phenomena and statistics which prove that theism leads to immorality in practice. This is an objective test, measuring the fruits of Christianity. And those fruits are uniformly rotten.

He ends by saying :

"I have a psychology degree and I know how statistics can be skewed to fit one’s own agenda. I see you quoted atheist literature. Do you have any neutral literature to verify this claim? Were there any other statistics taken? You only listed a handful of things."

If he has other statistics of this nature, he is free to present them. And as he should know, Barna Research is an avowedly Christian and pro-Christian organization, not an atheistic one. I am surprised that he is not aware of that fact.

"At any rate, this is a rabbit trail. People meeting and obeying God’s objective standard is not the requirement for it to exist."

No, I never stated it was. What I did state is that it displays the natural result of the lack of Christian morality as I have demonstrated it : moral and social degradation in all areas. That is the result of Christianity.

"Atheistic morals must be subjective because they can only be based on a changing, human standard; regardless of whether or not they can follow it." (he also says that : "Unless they are based on God’s Word, values are subjective.")

Here Dr. Gastrich is confused. I have never claimed that atheistic morality must be based on a changing human standard : I have soundly rebuked that view. My claim is that atheism is compatible with an objective morality that proceeds from the facts of reality. Simply asserting it is not, is not an argument.

Dr. Gastrich boasts in numerous places that atheists can only be moral by imitation : however, by doing so he is simply nay-saying my arguments. I think my opening case has sufficiently proven that Christians have no grounds for an objective moral system. He is going to have to do better than assertions to demonstrate his grounds for being moral. And as I explained before, as long as he holds on to a subjective will as his source, he is bound to failure. Any objective morality can only come from reality, causality and natural law. No other place.

[Jason Gastrich]

Hi Franc and IIDB Readers,

I hope you are well.

I’m going to address Franc’s statements in a point by point manner. I’ll quote his statement and respond to it. I’m sure that you are beginning to see that objective morality relies on an objective source of revelation; and a human is not an objective source.

Before beginning my rebuttal, I would like to briefly discuss strong-atheism. Dr. Gastrich has made a rather bold claim :

"In order to be a strong atheist, one would have to have all of the information available to the universe. For instance, if you want to say that you know that God doesn’t exist, then you must know whether or not God is on the other side of the Earth, or behind the Moon, or resting outside our solar system. Without all of this knowledge, you are simply giving your opinion based on limited information."

Without realizing it, he is revealing his anti-scientific attitude. Science makes universal statements all the time. For instance, does Dr. Gastrich disagree with the law of gravity ? If he agrees with it, how can he know matter attracts proportionally to mass and inversely to the square of the distance, if he has not been on the other side of the Earth, or behind the Moon, or outside of our solar system ?

How about contradictory entities ? Does Dr. Gastrich seriously think that square-circles, or invisible pink unicorns, or meaningless concepts such as "fdjkaslds" or "erwqiuo" could exist outside of our solar system, despite their meaningless or contradictory nature ? Could Dr. Gastrich please point out what it would mean for a square-circle, or invisible pink unicorn, or a fdjkaslds, or an erwqiuo, to exist ?

Meaningless or contradictory entities cannot exist. The concept of "god" comes under that same umbrella. To attempt to deny this would be a self-contradictory attempt to deny logic.

I’m very happy that you want to compare strong atheist to science. We all know that science deals with probabilities. Science does not prove. It makes a guess based on accepted evidence. If you want to call strong atheism a guess based on the evidence that you accept, then that’s fine with me. However, that’s a far cry from making an unequivocal statement about God’s non-existence.

Incidentally, science is self-correcting and has been corrected a great number of times. When we apply this to “strong atheism,� we see again how it isn’t a reliable analogy if one is trying to say that strong theism has unequivocal proof for God’s non-existence. Many atheists have made such a statement just to correct it later, as science does, and affirm God’s existence.


Materialist argument
In answer to the fact of divine creation making morality contingent, Dr. Gastrich claims that "God is perfect and true", and that therefore it cannot change or contradict himself. That is his claim : he must prove it. The god of the Bible certainly changes its mind on numerous occasions (for instance, when Jesus claimed he would come back, in Matthew 16: 27-28). The god of the Bible certainly also contradicts itself on numerous occasions, some of which I have included in my opening case.

Within the limited scope and space limitations of this debate, I cannot write a dissertation on God’s existence. However, I can do what I’ve already done; show you how the Bible is inerrant in every verifiable way. If a book as phenomenally unique as the Bible is true in every regard, then why not trust that the unprovable claims can be true as well? In this respect, it is far more trustworthy than science.

If you’d like to see exactly how unique the Bible is, then please go to the following site. It is quite revealing. Link: http://www.jcsm.org/biblelessons/BibleisUnique.htm

But these objections are secondary. The main problem with this kind of ad hoc rationalizing is that Dr. Gastrich has no evidence whatsoever to make these claims. His assertion that "God is perfect and true" is merely that, an assertion, and a meaningless one at that. If he is trying to formulate an objection here, he needs to formulate a meaningful and supported objection.

Not only does the inerrant Bible contribute to the strength of my statement, but so does my experience with the biblical God.

Likewise, Dr. Gastrich asserts that a Christian must uphold morality, or his position is absurd. But he gives no evidence for this view, except to claim that following Christian moral behaviour (which he cannot even define meaningfully) will give you rewards. How is that so ? What is his evidence for that assertion ? No such reward is apparent. Christians are no better off than non-Christians - and in many areas, such as moral behaviour, they seem handicapped.

Since every verifiable claim of the Bible is true, and since I have had a meaningful, productive, and legitimate relationship with the biblical God for over 20 years, I can conclude, by examining the evidence, that the Bible us true about the afterlife. However, there is an element of faith. “Without faith it is impossible to please God.� This faith isn’t any more unreasonable than the faith a secular scientist possesses as he or she makes statements about the distant, unobservable past. They just happen to be wrong and the Bible happens to be right. The point of having an open mind is to close it on something solid. Unfortunately, secular scientists have closed their minds on bad data, humanism, and assumptions.

The argument still stands : salvation, being an eternal benefit, must have infinite moral weight. Therefore the Christians' actions here on Earth, except for belief in Christianity, cannot carry any weight. Dr. Gastrich is trying to smuggle an importance, a weight, to Christianity morality, where it is unwarranted by the evidence.

The scriptures tell us that salvation is by faith through grace; not by works. Therefore, what he or she does, after getting saved, does not effect their eternal destiny. However, as I’ve already illustrated, there are a great number of reasons why a Christian would want to obey the source of morality.

In part, this is a red herring by Franc. The issue isn’t whether or not atheists can be more moral than Christians. The resolution of the debate is: Objective morality is (not) consistent with the atheistic viewpoint. Therefore, we should be discussing the source(s) of Christian and atheistic morality. Which source is objective and which source is subjective?

Who created atheistic morality? Where did it originate? Has it ever changed?


The Bible's account of morality

I have used numerous Bible verses to show that Christian morality is incoherent and contradicts the standard Christian assumptions. In answer to these, instead of trying to account for the facts, Dr. Gastrich tries to explain the word of God away.[/quote]

I’ve corrected and explained every misunderstanding of yours. I like to call your state of being “conveniently confused� because I know you are an intelligent human being. Please don’t stoop to the level of the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible in order to create an internal, biblical conflict. I’m curious about your theological education, but for the purposes of this debate, I’ll hold my questions.

"First, The passage in Deuteronomy wasn’t written for ‘one.’ It was written to and for the ancient Israelites. Jesus is speaking to the New Testament believers and the church.
Next, the issue in Deuteronomy was a legal issue for the ancient Israelites. Jesus gives a moral response and teaching for the New Testament believers and the church."

How does Dr. Gastrich think he has answered to the point at all ? Stating who the verse was written or spoken to, does not change the nature of the statements in question.

It does explain and interpret them, though. If your boss fires your co-worker, do you pack your things and leave?

This so-called hermeneutics of his is nothing more than red herrings. He even goes to such absurdity as to claim that God's law is temporal ("The law was given after Abraham’s marriage") and denies the very text of Matthew 10:35-36 ("Jesus never states that He came specifically to destroy families").

Giving a summary of my arguments (and a rather poor one, too) isn’t a counter-argument.

But at least he does admit his immoral beliefs on capital punishment, homosexuality and taxation.

I’m so glad you made a moral judgment. Now, we’re getting somewhere.

How did you make that moral judgment, Franc? Which source did you use to make it? Has that source ever changed?

Franc, I have asked you several questions in this round and I will ask you several more. I will be looking closely in your next round post, in order to see if you responded. If you avoid my questions, I will repeat them.


When presented with Bible events that contradicts science, he claims : "These passages describes miracles from God". Well, that may or may not be the case, but even if that is so, he still has not shown how these passages are not anti-scientific.

What is the difference between me making an educated conclusion about a biblical miracle and a secular scientist saying that life came from non-life by itself? I’ve seen and done miracles in Jesus’ name. This scientist has never seen life come from non-life by itself. Therefore, by your definition, I have far more evidence for my claim than the strong atheist and the secular scientist.

Furthermore, for Dr. Gastrich to even claim that miracles are possible means he considers himself omniscient. Without such omniscience, how could he know that these "miracles" cannot be explained by natural laws, even some we have not yet discovered ? In his arrogance, he seems to put himself on God's pedestal.

These are wild claims and accusations. People who have seen and done miracles can make educated statements about their existence. They don’t have to be omniscient.

Dr. Gastrich tries to rationalize away his god's behaviour by saying this :

"God never forbade all killing. He did lead the Israelites into war. God gave the Israelites the Sabbath law and Jesus told the New Testament believers how to interpret this law."

This isn’t a rationalization. This is a person understanding and explaining the scriptures by taking them in context, considering their intent, considering the audience, etc. It seems that you are more interested in snide remarks than finding the true meaning of the scriptures. It’s really not that difficult to discover.

Apparently Dr. Gastrich thinks perfect justice can be compatible with eternal torment for finite crimes. I'd like to see him try to explain that one.

The “finite crimes� are committed against an infinite God. Therefore, people need an infinite source of forgiveness and redemption. This source is in the person of Jesus Christ.

He also claims that revelation is no longer applicable because we have all the scriptures there should be. How does he know that ? The Bible was assembled by man, its books were chosen by man, not God. Why cannot man decide otherwise ? God is said to have revealed them, just as he is revealing things to other Christians today, and could decide to reveal more scriptures to Christianity. Why cannot God decide otherwise ? Is Dr. Gastrich saying that man, or God, does not have the capacity to do these things ? That much is absurd. And in fact people today do create new versions of the Bible.

Dr. Gastrich's sole objection to the supposed Christian morality not pertaining to moral facts, is to claim that God revealed context by revealing his laws. I cannot make sense of this objection. How does this process give context where there is none ? There is no contextual consideration in "thou shalt not kill", however it was revealed or discovered.

This is a great example and I’m glad you mentioned it. This word for “kill� is better translated “murder.� Finding the true meaning of the word in this matter clears up a number of your issues. See http://www.jcsm.org/StudyCenter/kjvstrongs/STRHEB75.htm#S7523

One can use some simple hermeneutics to see how “ratsach� should be translated “murder.� With your loose kind of apologetics (and I’m putting it nicely), you would apply this verse to animals and proclaim that God wanted the Israelites to be vegetarians.

His answer to my argument that Christian morality has changed in history is more substantial, but not by much. He claims that this reflects merely a change in opinion and a "deviant interpretation of scriptures", not in objective truth. But this only proves the point : since there is no objective morality present in the Bible, how could these opinions converge ? Converge towards what ? Theologians came to their conclusions based on their social context. Once again, if he wishes to claim that his interpretation is correct and all others are wrong, he needs to disprove theologians of all other eras, not me.

Objective morality as it is revealed from God in the scriptures is not dependent on humans being perfect. Could you affirm that a circle is perfect without being perfect?


Dr. Gastrich seems to think that I am trying to bring up people who are moral and people who are not. I did no such thing. What I did was present social phenomena and statistics which prove that theism leads to immorality in practice. This is an objective test, measuring the fruits of Christianity. And those fruits are uniformly rotten.

No, what you did was quote some statistics without providing proof that they actually exist. You didn’t have to avoid my questions about the statistics. Just say you don’t know.

moral and social degradation in all areas. That is the result of Christianity.

It is of no surprise that America is the strongest and most successful country in the world. It has a Christian foundation and a strong and positive, Christian influence by its citizens.

"Atheistic morals must be subjective because they can only be based on a changing, human standard; regardless of whether or not they can follow it." (he also says that : "Unless they are based on God’s Word, values are subjective.")

Here Dr. Gastrich is confused. I have never claimed that atheistic morality must be based on a changing human standard : I have soundly rebuked that view. My claim is that atheism is compatible with an objective morality that proceeds from the facts of reality. Simply asserting it is not, is not an argument.

Whether or not you’ve claimed that atheistic morality must be based on a changing human standard or not is irrelevant. It is. You have yet to give us a coherent explanation of the source of atheistic morality. Please post this in your next round response.

Objective Morality and Rocks

The atheistic viewpoint is incompatible with objective morality because atheism adheres to secular evolutionism. Secular evolutionism proclaims that life has evolved from inanimate objects and humans are essentially a combination of chemicals.

If humans are a complicated combination of chemicals, can there really be objective morality? Everything humans do is a result of chemical reactions. If a person wants to harm another person, this is just a result of a chemical reaction. Who is to say that this chemical reaction is wrong?

Since all things evolved from the same primordial soup, then shouldn’t all things have the same, objective morality? With the secular evolutionist/atheistic viewpoint, rocks and animals should have this same objective morality. Everything has evolved from the same stuff! However, the true freethinkers would consider this absurd because rocks and animals don’t have objective morality; despite allegedly evolving from the same substance.

Morality by Popular Opinion

In a best case scenario, the atheist’s morality is based on popular/majority opinion. It surely isn’t based on a non-human source. Their morality comes from people and what people think at a particular moment in time.

Unfortunately, there are many problems with this form of morality. Not only is it subjective by definition, it can be quite harmful. For instance, the majority opinion among Nazis was that the Jews had to be exterminated. How can an atheist say this is wrong? With what objective standard could they use to enforce their morals?

In the 17-1800's, slavery was used. The majority opinion among slave owners was unanimous. Slavery was ok. How could an atheist reject slavery? Which objective, moral guide could they use?

Atheistic Agenda

The out-of-the-closet, hardcore atheists have an agenda. These are the ones that are trying to get God off our money, out of the pledge, etc. They are the ones that want religious organizations to fail and receive no special consideration.

How can an atheist reconcile these intentions without pointing to a subjective moral opinion? In their world view, they don’t like those things and they want them eliminated. How could their opinion be anything more than subjective, though? Can atheists even begin to say that they are acting from an objective source of morality as they seek to further their agenda?

Franc has yet to give us a coherent source for atheistic morality. Once he tries, I’m certain that we will see that it isn’t objective at all. It comes from humans that believe like he does.

Conflicting Atheistic Morality

Since atheists do not have a non-human source of morality, it is no surprise that atheists do not agree on a number of moral issues. However, if atheists truly did have an objective source of morality, then wouldn’t it be tangible? Christians have a tangible Bible. Where is the atheist’s tangible source of objective morality?

Franc cited polls. Polls and popular opinions are all the atheist has in his quest to be moral. This is hardly objective morality, though.

Atheists are divided on issues such as the death penalty; and rightly so. They have no source of objective morality. They have no scriptures that they can use to show them what is truth and what is false.

Regardless of who can follow their source of morality, a non-human source will always be subjective because people change their minds. Conversely, a source of morality that is outside of our time space continuum can be objective. The Bible has not changed. The Bible was written by the inspiration of God’s Holy Spirit. It is inerrant in every verifiable way and it is the Christian’s source of objective morality. Until the atheist can identify a tangible source of their morality that cannot be changed, they will continue to embrace a subjective moral system.

The Atheist Bible

If the atheists have a Bible, then please give a link to it. I don’t mean a rebuttal against the Bible or against Christianity. I mean if they have a complete revelation of morals given to them from an objective source, then please post it. We’d all like to read it.

I think it is obvious that the atheist’s Bible is himself/herself. It is their fleshly desire. The atheist thinks and feels as he wishes, then finds a way to affirm his desire. He does not consult or even care about an objective source of morality. He does as he wishes and perhaps tries to fit into societal norms.

In cases of debate, the atheist points to opinions and things that have worked in some cases and for some societies. However, does the average atheist even know or care about other societies or these polls? Before he makes a moral judgment or movement, does he take the time to consult his objective source of morality with prayer, devotion, and penitence? Of course not.

Grounds

If a person rejects the biblical God and objective morality that comes from Him, then they have just affirmed the morality of the Holocaust. Josh McDowell made that statement to me a few years ago. After considering it and his sermon, I think he’s right.

Why is murder wrong? The Christian says that murder is wrong because God said it is wrong. It is against His will for us.

Why is murder wrong? The atheist says it is wrong because it is immoral. Why is it immoral? It’s immoral because it’s wrong. This is circular, but this is the best reasoning I’ve seen and heard. If this is a strawman, then please correct me, Franc.

You have just justified the Holocaust and all other heinous murders if you cannot have objective morality; and you cannot have objective morality unless it is from God.

If you say murder is wrong because your parents told you it is wrong, then what of those who never heard this from their parents? If you say murder is wrong because the society deems it so, then what of those societies that do not deem it so? We are obviously dealing with subjective morality when it comes to morality that does not come from God’s mouth.

More Moral Than You

I would not use an argument that says Christians are more moral than atheists. I know some Christians that are murderers, liars, thieves, etc. I know some atheists that live good lives. Just because someone is labeled a Christian or an atheist, it doesn’t mean that they do more or less bad things.

Being a Christian doesn’t mean one is perfect. It means that one is forgiven. Christians are still tempted to do evil and they sometimes (or often) do evil. However, the source of the objective morality still remains.

Some atheists are good people and some are not. However, being good isn’t good enough to the source of objective morality. He has given us His laws and requirements and He desires our repentance and trust.

The atheist cannot point to any non-human source of objective morality. Therefore, their morality must be based on the subjective opinion of the human or humans in their society.

Sincerely,
Jason Gastrich

[Francois Tremblay]

Dr. Gastrich has argued that it is fine for me to call strong-atheism a probabilistic position. I agree, since all knowledge is probabilistic, from my standpoint anyway. If Dr. Gastrich could prove to my satisfaction that the word "god" is meaningful and does not contradict features of our universe, then I would change positions. However, this is not the topic under debate, and he is not warranted in crowing that strong-atheism could be defeated.



Materialist argument

In answer to the argument that morality is contingent upon God, Dr. Gastrich argues that the Bible is inerrant, and that is sufficient to prove his point that "God is perfect and true". I address the Argument from the Bible in my book. But I do not need to even debate this argument, as it is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Even if I agreed that the Bible is inerrant, that would not prove that God is perfect. It could have been a book written and corrected by human beings (as history seems to indicate), and it could have been written by beings of great knowledge but not omniscience. But even if Dr. Gastrich can prove that it was written by an omniscient god, it still does not prove that the god in question is perfect. He needs to prove these steps before he even has an argument going.

He also needs to define what "perfect" means in this context. Perfection is a term relative to a use or property. What is a god perfect relative to ? Theologians have been unable to answer this question to date.

He also argues that a Christian should uphold morality, even though salvation has infinite moral weight, but the only evidence he presents is his own personal experience. I would like him to give us this personal experience so we can evaluate it. Apart from that, I see no other objections.

Peripherally, he asks :
"Who created atheistic morality? Where did it originate? Has it ever changed?"

I think he is still confusing the topic under debate again. The topic is not "atheistic morality" but rather whether atheistic worldviews are compatible with morality. I think my opening case proved this point well enough, i.e. that atheism is compatible with objective morality and Christianity is not.

Finally, he did not address the problems with a divine justification for creating human morality.



The Bible's account of morality

Dr. Gastrich claims that he answered to my Bible verses well enough. The reader will be the judge of that. I contend that it consists of nothing more than red herrings and sleight-of-hand.

For instance, he argued that the first two verses I presented, were presented to different people. To this I replied that this did not change the content of those verses. He replies :
"It does explain and interpret them, though. If your boss fires your co-worker, do you pack your things and leave?"

But this objection is completely irrelevant. As I pointed out before, these verses point to universal rules, that pertain to all people and eras. So for him to say this, is a complete denial of the content of these verses. If my boss says "everyone, leave now and never come back, this place is closing", I will not ignore this order because he was standing closer to my co-worker instead of me. I would recognize that this order is universal and therefore pertains to me as well. So his analogy is completely irrelevant.

Once again completely peripherally, Dr. Gastrich asks me :
"How did you make that moral judgment, Franc?"

I have already pointed out how I can make moral judgments from an objective perspective : by examining the facts of nature and their translation into values that my actions favour, given the context they take place in. For instance, I desire to live in a free society because it is objectively conductive to my life and the pursuit of my goals. And this freedom excludes capital punishment, the persecution of homosexuals, and taxation.

Now, how does Dr. Gastrich make his own moral judgments ? As I have proven with the materialist argument, the mere invocation of moral judgment on his part is hypocrite at best.



Rationalizing God's actions

Dr. Gastrich evades my questions about the scientific absurdities in the Bible and rather decides to attack science itself :
"What is the difference between me making an educated conclusion about a biblical miracle and a secular scientist saying that life came from non-life by itself?"

I'm glad that Dr. Gastrich concedes that he is against science. While this is an absurd epistemic position, which he himself contradicts by using the fruits of science every day, it is honest of him to come outright and say it.

As for his question, I would have to say that the proposition that life came from non-life is a necessary consequence of the truth of biological evolution. Biblical miracles, on the other hand, presume that he is omniscient, otherwise he could not eliminate the possibility of these "miracles" coming about by natural means. So I would say that the scientific position is definitely more rational than Dr. Gastrich's arrogant claim of omniscience.

He does answer to this argument however :
"These are wild claims and accusations. People who have seen and done miracles can make educated statements about their existence. They don’t have to be omniscient."

But this is not an answer at all, simple say-so. Yes, Dr. Gastrich, you do think you can make "educated statements" about the existence of miracles. However, this still logically entails that you believe you are omniscient. Do you know all the laws of nature ? If not, how can you claim that a miracle cannot be natural ? Dr. Gastrich, stop evading the issue and admit that you presume omniscience.

Likewise, he uses simple say-so in claiming that our finite crimes are committed against an infinite god. Yes, and ? How does that change the fact that our crimes are finite, and that they cannot warrant an infinite punishment ? You are in a debate, Dr. Gastrich, not on a pulpit. Get off your pulpit and justify your beliefs. Your tactics are irrelevant to an audience of atheists.



Christian morality's absolutism and its results

Dr. Gastrich's sole objection to my statement that "thou shalt not kill" is absolutist, is to claim that it really means "thou shalt not murder". Once again, even if that is true, how does that even apply to the debate ? "Thou shalt not murder" does contain slightly more context than "thou shalt not kill", but it is clearly insufficient to qualify as contextual.

To my argument that Christian morality is culturally relative, he argues that :
"Objective morality as it is revealed from God in the scriptures is not dependent on humans being perfect. Could you affirm that a circle is perfect without being perfect?"

Apparently he missed that this was precisely my point. If you presume the existence of a perfect Word of God, it would not take perfect human beings to be able to follow it. We can affirm that circles represent geometrical "perfection" in terms of circularity (i.e. points being equidistant to a single center) without ourselves being perfect. Why is Christian morality not of this category ? Dr. Gastrich needs to argue this point in order to convince me.

He claims that my statistics on moral behaviour are wrong. I have provided references for each of them. Therefore I don't know what he's going on about. Dr. Gastrich should get off his pulpit and talk like a rational being.

Dr. Gastrich also says :
"It is of no surprise that America is the strongest and most successful country in the world."

It is of no surprise that Dr. Gastrich is an American. Otherwise he would not be saying that. By all social accounts - crime rates, homicide rates, suicide rates, prison rates, capital punishment rates, religion rates, and so on - the United States is a second-world country.

America is the most successful country ? Apparently Dr. Gastrich has a weird standard of success !



Other objections

Dr. Gastrich commits the Fallacy of Composition when he claims that chemical reactions have no morality, therefore we should not have any morality. The Fallacy of Composition is a logical fallacy which consists of transposing attributes of parts to a whole without justification. Of course chemical reactions have no morality, but that does not indicate that a complex system that uses chemical reactions cannot. Unless Dr. Gastrich can explain how morality cannot exist at the level of the brain, he is committing a logical fallacy.

Dr. Gastrich claims that atheistic morality must be based on popularity. However, that is not an account that I have given. Indeed, I would strongly argue against such a view as being inter-subjective instead of objective. Therefore his argument does not address my position.

Dr. Gastrich asks me to point to a tangible source of morality. Well, he cannot use the Bible, as I have proven that it cannot be a source of morality. The source of objective morality, on the other hand, is all around him : it is called reality. The facts of natural law, human nature, and the facts of human organization are its foundation. He cannot deny their existence, or their relevance to his own life.

He ends his arguments by saying :

"Why is murder wrong? The atheist says it is wrong because it is immoral. Why is it immoral? It’s immoral because it’s wrong. This is circular, but this is the best reasoning I’ve seen and heard. If this is a strawman, then please correct me, Franc."

I have never stated that the justification for something being wrong, is being immoral. A proposition is wrong when it does not correspond to reality. However, your question is a loaded question. I have never stated that questions like "is murder wrong" are meaningful. Since contextualism is true, you need to provide a context for your question to be meaningful. Murder of what, in what situation, for what goal ?

"You have just justified the Holocaust and all other heinous murders if you cannot have objective morality; and you cannot have objective morality unless it is from God."

I agree that objective morality is necessary for moral obligation : however, I think I have sufficiently proven that such a morality is incompatible with Christianity.

[Jason Gastrich]

Dear Francois and Readers,

I hope you are well.

I’m going to continue answering Francois in a point by point manner. Apparently, I’ve answered every point of his because he has not complained about my avoidance. He simply doesn’t like my answers.

Last round, I asked Francois some important questions. I hope he answered them. If not, then I’ll ask them again. Here goes.


Materialist argument

In answer to the argument that morality is contingent upon God, Dr. Gastrich argues that the Bible is inerrant, and that is sufficient to prove his point that "God is perfect and true". I address the Argument from the Bible in my book. But I do not need to even debate this argument, as it is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

This isn’t what I said. I mentioned the Bible’s verifiable inerrancy as a tremendous authenticator or God’s character as it is revealed in the Bible. However, I also cited my experience with God and how He has revealed Himself to me. These things are sufficient to know that God is perfect and true.

Even if I agreed that the Bible is inerrant, that would not prove that God is perfect.

This is incorrect. The Bible indicates that God is perfect. Therefore, if you were to admit that the Bible is inerrant, then God would have to be perfect.

It could have been a book written and corrected by human beings (as history seems to indicate), and it could have been written by beings of great knowledge but not omniscience. But even if Dr. Gastrich can prove that it was written by an omniscient god, it still does not prove that the god in question is perfect. He needs to prove these steps before he even has an argument going.

The Bible was indeed penned by humans. However, it was inspired by the Holy Spirit.

I’ve laid a sufficient case for the Bible’s inerrancy and the perfect character of God being revealed in the Bible. You tried to float a logical fallacy above when you said that you could simultaneously affirm biblical inerrancy and God’s lack of perfection. Therefore, you have not addressed my claim sufficiently.

He also needs to define what "perfect" means in this context. Perfection is a term relative to a use or property. What is a god perfect relative to ? Theologians have been unable to answer this question to date.

Can you cite some places where this question has been asked to theologians? I’d like to see you confirm that this question has been asked and unanswered by theologians.

God is perfect in relation to His creation that chose imperfection.

He also argues that a Christian should uphold morality, even though salvation has infinite moral weight, but the only evidence he presents is his own personal experience. I would like him to give us this personal experience so we can evaluate it. Apart from that, I see no other objections.

Despite my request, you have yet to define “infinite moral weight.� If you are going to create phrases, then you should define them when asked.

Peripherally, he asks :
"Who created atheistic morality? Where did it originate? Has it ever changed?"

I think he is still confusing the topic under debate again. The topic is not "atheistic morality" but rather whether atheistic worldviews are compatible with morality. I think my opening case proved this point well enough, i.e. that atheism is compatible with objective morality and Christianity is not.

Your opening case didn’t prove anything. Now, you are dancing. Just answer the questions. I suspected you either couldn’t or wouldn’t.

Finally, he did not address the problems with a divine justification for creating human morality.

If you have a question that was unanswered, then please restate it. I’ve done my best to answer every point you have made and I’d be happy to answer this “problem� as well.

The Bible's account of morality

Dr. Gastrich claims that he answered to my Bible verses well enough. The reader will be the judge of that. I contend that it consists of nothing more than red herrings and sleight-of-hand.

I contend that your alleged contradictions reek of the same, poor exegesis that plagued the author of the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible. Yes, we will let the readers decide. Let it be known that your desire to let the readers decide was the sum of your counter-argument.

For instance, he argued that the first two verses I presented, were presented to different people. To this I replied that this did not change the content of those verses. He replies :
"It does explain and interpret them, though. If your boss fires your co-worker, do you pack your things and leave?"

But this objection is completely irrelevant. As I pointed out before, these verses point to universal rules, that pertain to all people and eras.

Why do they point to universal rules that pertain to all people and eras? How do you know? This isn’t what Christians understand, know, and believe. We know that the vast majority of the Old Testament laws were directed to and only to the ancient Israelites. As a matter of fact, the present-day Jews confirm this as well. So, are you the only one with your particular viewpoint? Is this line of thinking popular in atheistic thought? It’s surely not scholarly or intelligent. You must consider the context of the verses that you want to quote and understand. Period.

So for him to say this, is a complete denial of the content of these verses. If my boss says "everyone, leave now and never come back, this place is closing", I will not ignore this order because he was standing closer to my co-worker instead of me. I would recognize that this order is universal and therefore pertains to me as well. So his analogy is completely irrelevant.

This analogy doesn’t fit the circumstance in question.

Once again completely peripherally, Dr. Gastrich asks me :
"How did you make that moral judgment, Franc?"

It shouldn’t be a peripheral question to one that thinks they have found objective moral truth. It should be a quite normal and pertinent question.

I have already pointed out how I can make moral judgments from an objective perspective : by examining the facts of nature and their translation into values that my actions favour, given the context they take place in.

Now you care about context, eh? Isn’t that selective. Forget the biblical context of the quote mining you do, but when it comes to your own (SUBJECTIVE) judgments, you consider the context. Ironic.

What makes your judgments objective? How do we know they are not subjective? Has one of your judgments EVER changed, Francois? If even one of your judgments have changed, then you are not objective and do not have an objective form of morality. You have a subjective one that changes with your mood, your knowledge, your experience, etc. Not to mention that unless you use a biblical criteria to make these judgments, you are also making judgments with a subjective (changing) standard.

For instance, I desire to live in a free society because it is objectively conductive to my life and the pursuit of my goals. And this freedom excludes capital punishment, the persecution of homosexuals, and taxation.

You haven’t defined “free.� Your version of “free� is subjective. What you call free is not what another calls free. However, what the Word of God calls free cannot change because the Word of God cannot change. It has always been free and will always be free.

Now, how does Dr. Gastrich make his own moral judgments ? As I have proven with the materialist argument, the mere invocation of moral judgment on his part is hypocrite at best.

I use the Bible as my standard for morality. If an action is condoned by the Bible, then it is right. If an action is forbidden by the Bible, then it is wrong. I contend that this is the ONLY way a person can have an objective moral worldview. Only when a person relies on the unchanging moral standard of the inerrant scriptures can a person make an objective judgment; because only then are they using an objective standard.

Rationalizing God's actions

Dr. Gastrich evades my questions about the scientific absurdities in the Bible and rather decides to attack science itself :
"What is the difference between me making an educated conclusion about a biblical miracle and a secular scientist saying that life came from non-life by itself?"

Every verifiable claim in the Bible is true. Since the Bible is inerrant and since I have had a relationship with the biblical God for over 20 years, I can conclude that the rest of the Bible is true as well.

Aren’t miracles scientific absurdities? How about the UFO’s that the Mexican airforce recorded? Aren’t they scientific absurdities?

I'm glad that Dr. Gastrich concedes that he is against science. While this is an absurd epistemic position, which he himself contradicts by using the fruits of science every day, it is honest of him to come outright and say it.

I reject secular evolutionism. However, I do affirm science and I’m a firm believer in EVERY shape and form of evolution we have observed. It is the evolution that we have NOT observed that I do not believe. Perhaps you should consider having less faith in evolutionism.

As for his question, I would have to say that the proposition that life came from non-life is a necessary consequence of the truth of biological evolution. Biblical miracles, on the other hand, presume that he is omniscient, otherwise he could not eliminate the possibility of these "miracles" coming about by natural means. So I would say that the scientific position is definitely more rational than Dr. Gastrich's arrogant claim of omniscience.

The truth of biological evolution? Please don’t pretend like you don’t have faith in the evolutionism that you have never seen. You do.

As I said before, the prophetic, inerrant scriptures coupled with my long-term relationship with the biblical God gives me all of the information I need to conclude that the unverifiable parts of the scriptures are indeed true.

If omniscience is required to make statements about the distant past, then you are arrogantly claiming to be omniscient regarding our origin. Face it. The theory of evolution is the flat earth theory of the 21st century.

[quote]He does answer to this argument however :
"These are wild claims and accusations. People who have seen and done miracles can make educated statements about their existence. They don’t have to be omniscient."

But this is not an answer at all, simple say-so. Yes, Dr. Gastrich, you do think you can make "educated statements" about the existence of miracles. However, this still logically entails that you believe you are omniscient. Do you know all the laws of nature ? If not, how can you claim that a miracle cannot be natural ? Dr. Gastrich, stop evading the issue and admit that you presume omniscience.

You are putting forth a double standard. You are free to have faith and make wild claims about the distant past, the scriptures, etc. When I make a statement about something, then I “must� be omniscient or I cannot make such a statement. This is poor reasoning and a double standard.

Likewise, he uses simple say-so in claiming that our finite crimes are committed against an infinite god. Yes, and ? How does that change the fact that our crimes are finite, and that they cannot warrant an infinite punishment ? You are in a debate, Dr. Gastrich, not on a pulpit. Get off your pulpit and justify your beliefs. Your tactics are irrelevant to an audience of atheists.

I’m hoping you justify your beliefs. Actually, I’m hoping you reject your beliefs because there is not enough evidence to make them tenable.

After studying the Word for thousands of hours, finding it to be inerrant, and having a long-term relationship with the biblical God, I can affirm the biblical truths that God is infinite and that our sins against Him warrant our eternal punishment.

Christian morality's absolutism and its results

Dr. Gastrich's sole objection to my statement that "thou shalt not kill" is absolutist, is to claim that it really means "thou shalt not murder". Once again, even if that is true, how does that even apply to the debate ? "Thou shalt not murder" does contain slightly more context than "thou shalt not kill", but it is clearly insufficient to qualify as contextual.

Ah, that word again. Context. You seem to care about context only when it suits you.

If you want context, then why don’t you read more of the Bible? The only way to understand a biblical command in context is to understand it in the context of the book in which it was written.

To my argument that Christian morality is culturally relative, he argues that :
"Objective morality as it is revealed from God in the scriptures is not dependent on humans being perfect. Could you affirm that a circle is perfect without being perfect?"

Apparently he missed that this was precisely my point. If you presume the existence of a perfect Word of God, it would not take perfect human beings to be able to follow it.

In order to follow it perfect, yes, it would take a perfect human being.

We can affirm that circles represent geometrical "perfection" in terms of circularity (i.e. points being equidistant to a single center) without ourselves being perfect. Why is Christian morality not of this category ? Dr. Gastrich needs to argue this point in order to convince me.

This is exactly what I’m saying. A person like me can recognize God’s perfection through diligent study and research, coupled with a long-term relationship with Him. I do not have to be perfect in order to affirm the perfect God.

Dr. Gastrich also says :
"It is of no s