Perhaps you could clarify your comments?

I recommend reading the entire first rebuttal. The argument seems very compelling.

It’s also important to define preference in this context. I would prefer not to eat cardboard, for instance, which may not be important in the cosmic sense, but such a thing comes loaded in the human mind – certain things could be seen as good or bad depending on their consequences. In this case I could starve. I know you were responding to ordinaryseeker, but I think most would concede that a moral foundation is endemic to a rational human mind, regardless of whether it’s objective or not. There are reasons for doing everything. You can even say that bad reasons might lead to bad judgment, which leads to bad decisions, which we may define as a moral decision. Yes, the way in which we balance reasons in our individual minds is often subjective, but anybody can recognize the privation of someone else’s values. As I have stated before, there are beneficial reasons for why “injustice”, if we are to abide by a typical definition, should not be done. Injustice invariably leads to conflict, which is destructive. And so it’s not that people have a right to a certain standard. We develop a system of rights that leads to the least possible amount of conflict (and also why modern Western morality is largely secular in nature) so that stability exists. Peace and justice, then, become ideals defined by human standards. I suppose there is nothing to stop the imposition of standards, but then it just becomes an infinite regress, and the imposer can always be imposed upon. There is a good reason why this myopic regress should be stopped. Some personal actions might be limited, but it would also allow many other actions without threat of imposition, and from an impersonal perspective this is a solid idea since ultimately we’re all responsible to each other anyway. If we ignore this, then conflict will inevitably tear everything apart. And since the world has gotten much smaller, there are many good reasons to expect such solidarity now. We are much closer and have to answer to each other.

Veering a bit off topic, but Jerry McDonald’s argument is kind of underwhelming. He consistently quotes from modern day encyclopedias, as if they hold any value to the discussion, and he doesn’t lay the Josephus quote in context: merely that we should believe it. I’m not doubting Josephus, of course, nor the historicity of Jesus, but there are important questions: what does the quote say about Jesus? How much would Josephus truly know? He also doesn’t really attempt to defend the Biblical accounts themselves. Can they be trusted? Was it possible to spin myth out of Jesus’s life? Instead, he spends some time attacking the less likely argument: that Jesus wasn’t, in fact, dead. Of course, part of his rebuttal is to once again quote scripture without establishing its veracity.

The counter-point is sort of a novel argument, but it would be much easier to go after the first one (whether Jesus rose from the dead) and not the second (whether there was a supernatural force behind it). I didn’t read the entire argument, but I think that it’s more improbable to accept that this supposedly defining moment in human history was something beyond what it was purported to be, especially since we get the claims of divinity or supernatural essence from the Biblical accounts themselves (if we are to believe them). So he would also have to explain that in addition to his other arguments, placing the burden further on his shoulders.

See what you think.

Mind you, the awful texture of the disorder is not for a moment overlooked — that is the integrity of the judgment — but the problem is resolved through nonviolence and forgiveness. What appeared rhetorically in the Sermon on the Mount (“Turn the other cheek,” “Love your enemies”) and more concretely on the cross (“Father, forgive them, they know not what they do”) now shines in all of its transfigured glory (“Shalom”).

The gods who sanctioned scapegoating and the restoration of order through violence are now revealed to be phony gods, idols, projections of a sinful consciousness, and the true God comes fully into the light.

It is in this way that Jesus “Takes away the sins of the world.” The old schemas of handling disorder through vengeance restored a tentative and very unreliable “peace,” which was really nothing but a pause between conflicts. Evil met with evil only intensifies, just as fire met with fire only increases the heat, and an “Eye for an eye,” as Gandhi noted, succeeds only in eventually making everyone blind.

But what takes away violence is a courageous and compassionate nonviolence, just as water, the “opposite” of fire, puts out the flames. On the cross, the Son of God took on the hatred of all of us sinners, and in his forgiving love, he took that hatred away. By creating a way out of the net of our sinfulness, by doing what no mere philosopher, poet, politician, or social reformer could possibly do, Jesus saved us.

Psychologists tell us that a true friend is someone who has seen us at our worst and still loves us. If you have encountered me only on my best days, when all is going well and I am in top form, and you like me, I have no guarantee that you are my friend, But when you have dealt with me when I am most obnoxious, most self-absorbed, most afraid and unpleasant, and you still love me, then I am sure that you are my friend.

The old Gospel song says, “What a friend we have in Jesus!” This is not pious sentimentalism; it is the heart of the matter. What the first Christians saw in the dying and rising of Jesus is that we killed God, and God returned in forgiving love. We murdered the Lord of Life, and he answered us, not with hatred, but with compassion. He saw us at our very worst, and loved us anyway.

Thus they saw confirmed in flesh and blood what Jesus had said the night before he died: “I do not call you servants any longer, but I have called you friends” (John 14:15). They realized, in the drama of the Paschal Mystery, that we have not only been shown a new way; we have been drawn into a new life, a life of friendship with God.”

More of this essay at http://payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/06/24/jesus-as-judge-and-savior/

I don’t think (in view of the above) that Christian morality or justice is a matter of “preferences.”

Since my preference (sentiment) is ultimately irrational then I have no argument (reason) with which to change your preference (sentiment). Therefore, my only recourse, should I find your preference offensive, is force.

An important point worth repeating. Given the premise, there can be no valid reasons behind any morality. But moral relativists ask for reasons anyway. In the case of God, the relativist asks God to give a valid reason to justify the moral law. Strange.

We’ve been over this ground before

I’m painfully aware of that fact

It’s OK that my moral sentiments are nothing “more than” setiments…

Then they cannot be “normative” in the sense of judging, to return to the initial cause of this discussion, the moral culpability of God for enjoining the Hebrews to commit genocide. Warfare, piracy, robbery, murder, etc. are equally virtuous for those whose moral sentiments lead them in that direction.

I don’t necessarily need to convince another person his actions are morally reprehensible. I may need to stop him from doing them…

Without some rational, or at least rationalized, moral standard then we are constrained to fall back on force as the ultimate moral standard. I dislike (preference) that which you do and wish to stop you from doing it. Since my preference (sentiment) is ultimately irrational then I have no argument (reason) with which to change your preference (sentiment). Therefore, my only recourse, should I find your preference offensive, is force.

With a rational moral standard, even a false standard, I can offer an argument for the utility of this common standard. Force is no longer the only recourse.

A believer may tell a non-believer… Reference to what one person considers a higher authority will not be convincing.

I suppose that depends upon what is being communicated and the receptiveness to reason of the parties involved. We will all, at times, refer to ‘higher’ authority, whether it is a transcendent authority or a temporal authority.

Trancendent authority may be God or the gods, reason, sentiment, the stars, spirit, number, etc. Temporal authority may include some international body, a state, the law or constitution, the tribal leader, of the family patriarch or matriarch or your employer. The question is not whether we shall refer to authority, but to which authority should we refer?

Mortimer Adler, architect of the Great Books and one of the great thinkers of the 20th C. said, “”Articles of faith are beyond proof. But they are not beyond disproof. We have a logical, consistent faith. In fact, I believe Christianity is the only logical, consistent faith in the world. But there are elements to it that can only be described as mystery.”

http://hi.baidu.com/asting521/blog/item/757fa01c87f5ad8286d6b6cd.html

Morality and justice ARE preferences…

Are they? If so, you have no reason to ‘prefer’ one standard over another, nor to complain should someone else have the power to impose their standard upon you. Even the belief that you have a ‘right’ to your own standard is an objective moral claim, if it is nothing more than preference, then there is no injustice should you be prevented from actualizing your sentimental preference. “Peace and justice for all” is reduced to nothing more than an impassioned cluster of sentimental syllables stripped of semantic significance.

I was merely trying to make the distinction between the Christian thought – that the very essence of and reason for the universe considers us special – and the notion that we are special in a sort of relative sense – only to us and perhaps any other creatures that can and want to recognize it.

What makes might? Isn’t might accomplished with a group? But then must not might itself conform to the golden rule? If people combine into groups in order to become strong, then they must live with the ideas of others. But they could perhaps be annihilated by stronger groups and stronger groups…or perhaps the group itself is weakened by its own conflict. These groups might then realize that their ideas are too uniform and exclusive. By being more inclusive, groups become more tolerant, and might grows. Thus tolerance has some correlation to survival. The golden rule almost has some sort of weird fixture within the naturalistic approach. I say again that contiguous conflict is not sustainable. Ultimately it must diffuse into some kind of tolerance if we want to remove ourselves from this constant struggle. Some sort of equalized “fairness” is the logical outcome.

Now, of course, your example of abortion doesn’t quite work because one of those worldviews must be faulty (or perhaps both are). That’s why reality is important in dealing with morality. I would further argue that everybody, regardless of religion, foments beliefs based on their views of reality. It’s just that humans do share quite a bit of reality together, and so beliefs can intersect. Even many pro-lifers might see the argument of making an exception when the mother’s life is at risk. We take our views of the universe, the “human condition”, our own life experiences, and the inner workings of our minds and package them as a set of values that we hold to and use. The problem, then, is that these are very subjective and contingent on perspective and who they benefit. That’s why we ultimately make appeals and arguments. I might say that the Iraq War was wrong. According to a naturalist perspective, it’s totally relative, right? Well let’s examine this statement. Why does it seem bad? It destabilized the region, and the conflicts we hoped to put an end to actually intensified. It potentially hurts us in the long run, as we sow discontent in the Middle East. It was based on a faulty reality (bad intelligence). I use these reasons that anybody can understand and make a judgment call. Since most humans by their very nature strive toward some form of intellectual integrity (because it’s integral to their continual functioning and survival as they interact with reality), these are things that can form an appeal to others.

This idea cuts to the very heart of what morality is. It’s a system of beliefs that speak to the very way in which we harm people and their values. There’s no objective basis, but they are very, very powerful suggestions. Besides, this supposed objective basis can be a little wonky. If George Bush says that the Iraq War is a Godly war, and people believe that he’s Godly, and God doesn’t actually weigh in here, then traditional reasoning is completely short-circuited. This might work if there is actually a God telling people how to act. It’s not so great if people merely think that they’re obeying God’s will, for they can justify anything. After all, obey God is the number one rule. Killing is just if God wants to work it for good. I have seen even some good-hearted Christian fall prey to these black and white views. It can hurt more than help sometimes. Justice becomes another word for rationalization. I never want to see that again, and as a former Christian I never want to be that again. Paradoxically, a naturalist worldview has actually led me toward a more “tolerant” position. I know Christians will quibble over the idea of tolerance, so I’m trying to say that with no real objective basis, I try my best not to impose my views on someone else. I am less likely to wish for force to be used, and I’m more likely to stick to virtues, even if they are difficult.

In a general sense people can see what kind of actions or virtues are beneficial, and we have certain tendencies in how we apply that, so a system of morality comes out of it naturally. Perhaps there isn’t always a middle ground in terms of beliefs, but there is middle ground in terms of rationality, and with it usually comes the possibility of capitulation given the proper weighing of the facts. I say that I am short-sighted, that I am prone to failure, and I think that everybody should recognize that in themselves. Everybody is so desperate to impose their own values on others, but I say that it usually hurts them and other people in the long run because they cannot quantify the effects of their actions. Even worse is a short-sighted person who is certain that he has omniscience on his side. Oftentimes certainty reflects urgency and not the actual certitude of the formulation process of beliefs, and it is this certainty that is often the enemy of decision-making. So I certainly don’t know what’s “just”. I do know, however, that I’d rather let people explore that by themselves, and I think that such a normative “suggestion” is definitely the most beneficial stance in a general sense.

And such a thing is built on more than sentiment because there is a rational foundation. Morality is kind of like having a philosophy. And in my mind there is a perfectly good reason to hold to a particular axiom because I believe that conflict is inherently unsustainable. Nature seizes upon conflict, using it to destroy the old and build up the new, and certainly it has helped along the human race at times, but I think that the evolution of man is at its last gasp, as we are beginning to circumvent nature itself. If we no longer have to engage in nature’s bloody fight for survival, then that removes a major roadblock in the struggle of mankind. SteveK mentioned the human condition, and it’s important with morality to understand the human condition, as it’s simply human nature that a more educated, well-to-do, affluent, and healthier population will be more at peace. Begin removing sources of conflict and humanity will generally stop engaging in most of the conflict within itself. Of course, no matter how many problems are removed, you will always have small, personal conflicts, but I also think that people who grow up or live in stable, educated neighborhoods are also more likely to be stable throughout a lifetime. This is predictable because human behavior is ultimately predictable. I see little reason why people continue to fight for silly, myopic ground. Even the bully can be beaten up. Those who try to exercise their power indiscriminately are merely sowing conflict, and their ideas rarely last.

So yeah, I think we can use those tenets as grounds for a system of morality. I don’t know if humanity will ever reach a better state, and even now these ideas can’t be perfectly exercised. Conflict is a part of life. However, I think that it makes the idea of original sin irrelevant, and justice can hardly spring from some sort of objective source. I think that upholding justice is a human concept that is applied to a conflict that we think is rational. Is self-defense just? Is war just? These are often applied so subjectively that general guidelines become quite vague. We merely try to explain it by saying that a conflict must solve more conflict than it creates. These are all based on ideas anchored in our universe. Justice does not need an objective source, and a lack of objective source does not mean that they are reduced to mere preferences.

On the other hand, what good is a law giver who doesn’t appear to enforce his laws? I could at least understand the God of the Bible in that he really let you know what he wanted. Unfortunately, I think that the writers of the Bible were just people trying to interpret what they saw around them through the lens of God, as people tend to do now. One can fault a naturalistic worldview because there may not be anything in an impersonal universe that truly stops someone from acting in a certain way, but I don’t see any God correcting the truly unreachable either, even if they are religious. In fact, many additional problems are created because people think they know the will of God.

There was a discussion earlier about hostility within the context of Christianity. I do think that there are problems with the idea of a God who expects belief and this strange, mercurial world often working against belief. This is where the idea of justice is very vague. For example, those who live longer might be more likely to become inundated with Christianity and believe. Those who meet specific circumstances might be more likely to believe. One must have this incredible faith that God always works toward the greatest good, whatever that really is, but many people look at the world and are repulsed by that sort of thing because there is this conflict in the idea of a God working toward good and things just playing themselves out in an often unfair way. God can’t control everything, according to Christians, but if he doesn’t, then randomness ensues, and you don’t play dice with souls. So which one is it?

I believe nothing of the sort. What I claimed is that its not a foregone conclusion that the future will be nightmarish if there’s no God.

Not nightmarish does not equal perfection.

What I think is that humans have managed to improve many of the societies now existing over what they were in the past and that its therefore not unreasonable to hope that we might make further improvements.

What you’ve attacked is a mere caricature of my position.

Can you be confident that this won’t so stress economies that the whole world will be thrown into chaos?

I never claimed to be confident that the future would be better. I said its not a forgone conclusion that the future will not be better.

It could very easily become worse. To which fact the intelligent response is not despair but determined effort in support of those things that are best in society and against what’s worst.

Even where there is progress, it is fragile. It might be lost.

Yes, it might be lost. In the real world things are not guaranteed to work out for the best.

Moral relativism destroys any ‘we’ve made real moral progress’ argument so you guys are going to have to take a stand here one way or the other.

I’m not a moral relativist—and have already explained by views on meta-ethics.

On what metaphysical basis does an atheist (or humanist) support his claim to morality and justice?

Again, a topic I’ve covered before.

1. It’s okay that my moral sentiments are nothing “more than” moral sentiments, although I would call them moral convictions. I don’t believe that anyone’s moral convictions are “more than” their own moral convictions.

2. I don’t necessarily need to convince another person that his actions are morally reprehensible. I may need to stop him from doing them, but I don’t need to convince him that he needs to stop doing them because they’re “wrong.”

3. A believer may tell a non-believer (or a believer who believes differently than he does) that “God sez,” but the non-believer’s answer will be, “so what?” Reference to what one person considers a higher authority will not be convincing.

4. Morality and justice ARE preferences: They are the preferences of a social group.

What does it matter if I suffer injustice? Would I not have deserved even more severe punishment from God if God had not treated me with mercy? Is not justice done to me even done to me a thousand times over even in injustice? Must it not be beneficial and conducive to humility for me to learn to bear such petty ills silently and patiently?

Dietrich Bonhoeffer

On what metaphysical basis does an atheist (or humanist) support his claim to morality and justice? I don’t doubt that you have an intuitive and sentimental sympathy for morality and justice, I think most, if not all people share that sentiment. My question is not “Do you have moral sentiments?” but “How do you know those moral sentiments are anything more than sentiment?”

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sentiment

Let us suppose that you are confronted by someone who does not share your moral sentiment and whose intent to act is contrary to your concept of justice. How would you convince this person that his/her chosen action is morally objectionable?

It is not sufficient to say “I think…” or “I feel…” or “I believe…” X is reprehensible. Nor is it enought to say “Everybody thinks /feels /believes…” X is reprehensible. Unless there is some rational foundation, something more than sentiment, for your claim to moral discernment then he/she is perfectly justified to respond with “sez who?”

Morality and justice are reduced to words that express preferences, no different than saying “I like ice cream” or “I prefer fresh strawberries”.

I guess this depends on your values.

Moral relativism destroys any ‘we’ve made real moral progress’ argument so you guys are going to have to take a stand here one way or the other.

I guess this depends on your values. I see equal marriage rights for homosexuals as moral progress, whereas others do not. I see access to safe and legal abortions as progress, whereas others do not.

Certainly we are making more progress in ensuring that all people have basic human rights in more developed countries than we are in less developed countries.

The “we” you speak of are the current residents of the U.S. But if we wish to speak of the condition of humanity, that “we” should include not just those here but all everywhere. I wonder what our judgment must be about the “progress” the world has made if we so widen our judgment.

Moreover, if we wish to speak of the condition of humanity, we must speak of it not only now, but in the future as well; and I have precisely zero confidence that even here, even in the “enlightened” West, we won’t slip back into barbarism. Many Jews refused to leave Europe even after Hitler’s Germany had by its actions made its intentions clear. They believed that “it” could not happen here. They were wrong. Darkness descends where once there was light. Perhaps for us too the light has begun to fade. The Earth warms b/c of the pollution we spew. Can you be confident that this won’t so stress economies that the whole world will be thrown into chaos? Islamist extremists seeks to destroy the West. What if New York or LA were to disappear in a mushroom clould? What would be our response? What would be the response to the response?

Even where there is progress, it is fragile. It might be lost. Who can judge the probabilities here? Where in the mundane can you place any trust?

I wish people who think things haven’t gotten better could travel into the past and live for a year in the same place they now live but a century or two ago—they’d find they have much to be thankful for living in this time that they’ve failed to appreciate.

You fail to distinguish between modern conveniences and the human condition, which by it’s very nature has limits. Your hope in Mankind is a hope with a limited result – or do you believe we can become like gods to save us from ourselves? Christian’s believe that our hope is rooted in the hope God gives us as creator of all reality.

You seem to believe that an *actual* heaven-on-Earth scenario is possible given enough time – no violence, no tears, no immorality, etc. Does the evolutionary mechanism predict this, or are we detached from evolution and driving the mechanism to the outcome we seek?