1st paragraph: Yes, I do… or, at the very least, for his “explaining away” or deflecting those “problems” away from the failings of his own world view. If DL doesn’t agree with what he promotes, then let him say so… but then, he’d be disagreeing with the moral problems transhumanism creates… which undercuts DL’s moral realtivism… again.

2nd paragraph: of course—that was my point: he has “moral” problems with the doctrine of hell, but has no empirical evidence upon which to base that problem: I was bringing out his hyper-empiricism and “science” (clearing my throat) in issues to which they don’t apply. The obvious examples of the bloody, genocidal nature of athiesm in this world were just icing on the cake.

3rd paragraph: Well put.

Lastly: It’s the first two paragraphs of my response that, to me at least, brought out the most egregious gaffs of his position. Perhaps, I should have focused on these…

“Are you saying that sin is ontologically different from immoral action?”

Good question. No, that’s not exactly what I’m saying, though I can see why you thought that.

1. Immoral action is a species of sin. The difference is that it’s possible, obviously, to think of immoral action without reference to God. The term “sin” always includes reference to God: if I act immorally toward you, I am sinning against you and also against God.

2. Further, sin is a condition and not just an action. It is a state of rebellion and separation from God, which produces the fruit of sinful action.

“Unfortunately, evolution is predictive, but theology is not.”

There is that long-standing disagreement, isn’t there. No, I don’t think evolution predicts this at all. The things that make us human can be force-fit into an evolutionary paradigm, but it’s not a good fit at all. These same things are entirely at home and predictable under theism. But “prediction” of something that’s been known to be true for thousands of years is a dicey business, no?

“Does your philosophy offer hope of ultimate success? It seems like your own philosophy implies an extraordinarily high body count. Indeed, Hell sounds worse than death. That’s not very hopeful, IMO.”

Of course there’s hope! There’s hope in Christ! But without Christ, you’re right, there is destruction. This says that ultimately it matters how we live our lives. Russell’s view denies this. You may be comfortable with that, and if so, then you are. You accept that oblivion is the end. In the end, nothing will matter. That’s the hopelessness I reject–not just on aesthetic/existential grounds, but because there is good reason to believe it’s not the truth.

I think the body count to which he refers is metaphorical, speaking not of war, murder, or genocide, but the Christian doctrine of hell.

I agree with you there is incongruency in his making that a moral issue when his moral standards are entirely his own, and not transferable, with any authority whatsoever, to any other person or group.

Wait… this is the same person who, while admitting to no philosophical bona fides, holds to the personal opinion that metaphysics is “irrelevant” and calls the science of being “ontology-smontology”? [edited by Siteowner]

So, again, we witness [edited by Siteowneer] attempts to impose upon others [the view] that his own personal, subjective scientistic view of reality is the only acceptable form of “explanation.”

And, as a moral relativist, DL in absolutist terms criticizes other views for the alleged “body count” (unscientifically, of course: after death for which he has no empirical evidence) when, in fact, we do have clear empirical evidence of DL’s own atheistic worldview accounting for more bloodshed than all religious faiths combined throughout history. Moreover, DL is a proponent of “transhumanism,” which promises plenty more experimentation upon the weaker to benefit the stronger, i.e., more and more bodies: for example, Simon Young, a leading transhumanist, openly advocates a biologistic, eugenic type of ethics to make “designer” human beings—see Simon Young, Designer Evolution: A Transhumanist Manifesto (New York: Prometheus, 2006); reviewed in First Things 164 (June-July, 2006; 48-49.) “Unsuccessful people” are those who have not managed to “upgrade” themselves biologically. Didn’t we hear something similar from the Nazis (untermenchen) and from those who justified slavery by reducing blacks to “fractional humans” and “non-citizens” (Dred Scott vs. Sanford), and what we hear now from pro-abortionists who reduce humans in the womb to the status of “non-persons” dependent on the mantra of personal “choice”?

And, notice the sweet irony of the bloodied hands of atheism and transhumanism: evolutionary ideology rejects any “designer” God… and yet projects (like transhumanism, embryonic stem cell research, etc.) abound in which man himself declares himself the “designer” of evolution.

Christ offers us the Cross as the path to everlasting life. Atheism offers us genocide and oblivion… preceded, of course, by intellectual death.

Note from Siteowner: I am enforcing the updated comments policy. I’m holding open the right to exercise Item 10 in the policy.

We cannot tell without God’s revelation that our conflict, self-centeredness, and pain and death are the result of this untrendy, meddlesome concept of sin.

Are you saying that sin is ontologically different from immoral action? You write as if sin is a compound, a poison, that induces immoral action. Is this just a manner of speaking?

This hints that there’s something different going on, something that doesn’t fit in the evolutionary scheme of things, something that may just have come from elsewhere.

Unfortunately, evolution is predictive, but theology is not. Not to reopen our long-standing disagreement on the nature of explanations, but it seems to me that, aesthetically, a predictive explanation trumps a non-predictive one (assuming we thought non-predictive ones existed). And IIRC this series is really about aesthetics.

Of Russell, you say:

I merely say that his philosophy provided no hope of ultimate success in that quixotic effort.

Does your philosophy offer hope of ultimate success? It seems like your own philosophy implies an extraordinarily high body count. Indeed, Hell sounds worse than death. That’s not very hopeful, IMO.

Personally, I am quite comfortable with a lack of “ultimate success.” More success seems better than less, and this fact alone seems quite adequate to inspire whatever actions (or, at least, ambitions) are necessary.