“It’s not natural.”“The traditional family will be destroyed”
“Children will be harmed.”
These are some of the arguments that were raised during an informal debate on gay marriage that arose during a management course I attended a few weeks ago. It arose from a discussion that focused on managing diversity in the workplace with regards to race, religion and sexual orientation. I took part in the debate by making a few points in support of gay marriage. Most of the group argued against homosexual union, while two of us voiced support for the idea. It was an interesting and thought provoking debate for all of us.
Where does South Africa stand with regards to gay marriage? In December 2005, the South African Constitutional Court (analogous to the Supreme Court in the United States) ruled that South Africa’s Marriage Act was unconstitutional on grounds that it discriminated against homosexuals. Last Thursday, Cabinet voiced its support for this decision. The result of this is that from December this year, homosexuals can legally marry and share all the legal benefits that heterosexual unions enjoy.
I am excited about this decision. I could never understand why Cori and I could easily marry and enjoy legal benefits of such a union, while gay friends of mine - who were in committed relationships with their partners - were barred from those same benefits. During apartheid, mixed racial couples were not allowed to legally marry in South Africa. Fortunately, this changed after the advent of democracy in 1994. The South African constitution, which was drawn up in 1996, prohibits discrimination on grounds of race, gender, religion and sexual orientation. It is only logical that if South Africa repealed laws that discriminated against couples of mixed racial groups, it would also have to repeal laws that discriminate against gay couples. The amendments suggested by the Constitutional Court for the Marriage Act was a positive step in this direction.
Some conservative Christian groups have naturally reacted negatively to these developments. Listening to some the arguments raised during the debate, I can understand their concern. However, South Africans live in a secular society that is characterised by many different cultures, races, religions and beliefs. To enjoy the benefits of secular society (e.g., to have the freedom to worship one’s religion of choice) one has to make various sacrifices (e.g., to be subject to limitations that restrict one’s ability to impose religious beliefs on others). Conservative Christian groups should realise that they cannot force society to live by some of their values, simply because there are many individuals in society who are not Christian.
I look forward to attending and celebrating the marriages that will eventually take place between my gay friends. It is a freedom that should not be taken lightly because it is a freedom that was hard fought for.
58 comments:
I'm glad that South Africa allows gay marriage now. I support religious freedom, and I believe this is a religious issue--the liberal Christian church I used to attend performed "commitment ceremonies."
I am pretty confident that in my lifetime (I'm in my 30s), the USA will allow gay marriages too. But I'm pretty sure just about every other Westernized country will allow it before the USA does.
I saw film of male pygmy chimps performing fellatio on each other and I have to admit I was fascinated with their display. I don't have any problem with gay people marrying or even adopting children. To be honest I can remember questioning my sexuality once or twice growing up. Once with an ex-girlfriend right before we became intimate. I think back on it now and it was probably just me using it as a pathetic scheme to convince her to sleep with me. I'm not proud of it but it worked and we had fun. Since I started immersing myself with "freethinking" books and websites I've had to remind myself that not everyone is reading the same things as I am. But maybe that's a good thing. My acceptance of homosexuality has skyrocketed now that I've allowed myself to get educated about the subject. Who really suffers with homosexuality anyway? I've never had a gay friend before so I don't have any experiences to really bring to the table. I'd like to read about arguments against gay marriage though. Particularly from those who have gay friends or family members.
I guess christians have a bit of a martyrdom complex after all these years, and homosexuality is their very favorite sin to hate.... but still, I've always wondered why it was such a big deal. I'd like to see them make such a big stink about the stuff that's truly detrimental to society.... child poverty, domestic violence and the like..... but alas. Good on ya, South Africa. If you think about it, it's a long way to come in such a short time.... from apartheid to gay marriage.
That's amazing. Hooray for South Africa. I'm a 45 year-old, married, mother of one and I'm a VERY pro-gay marriage. Unfortunately, I live in the U.S., where many people are against it. As an Agnostic, it's hard for me to understand the other side of the argument. It always comes around to, "it's just not natural" or something along those lines. I respond with,"according to whom?". "The bible" is usually the answer I get.
I just think if you're a tax-paying, U.S. citizen, you should be afforded the same rights as every other tax-paying U.S. citizen.
So good for you South Africa, what wonderful news!
Good news indeed! I can only hope that the U.S. will come around!
More and more social studies being done in countries with legalized gay marriages are concluding that the new law is not playing any part in the detriment of society, despite what some fundamentalists would like to beleive.
As an expat South African, as a gay man who lives in the US, someday, I hope I can marry my partner.
It's such a "conversation starter" here in the US to say my home country is more tolerant and progressive than what they "fought" against in apratheid South Africa. I am proud of SA for this move, and it makes sense in so many ways, and it puts to shame what the religious right is trying to overturn in this country.
Thanks for keeping me up to date ... I plan to take my partner to SA for a visit as soon as I have my green card.
Hi all,
The best argument that I have heard from the Christian side in opposition to gay marriage has to do with childhood development. The argument is that children need influence from both a father figure and a mother figure - having both in a child's life makes it more likely that the child will be psychologically stable, secure, etc. So, the argument is then that the state should protect heterosexual marriage (or somehow keep it in a special category) in order to promote healthier childhood development, and thus a more stable society in general. I don't know the sociology behind this argument, but it's an interesting argument. What do you think? I'm just throwing this out there.
well I do know that growing up without a father figure did screw me up significantly. But then it's perfectly legal for a father to up and abandon his children, isn't it?
I think a child with two supportive, loving parents will be better off regardless of their respective genders. Kids need all the love they can get, right? Given the choice between an unhappy heterosexual marriage or a happy, loving homosexual one, which do you think would be healthier for children?
Of course, homosexual couples are no less likely to split up than heterosexual ones, but I think in today's society and the massive divorce rate, we have no cause to condemn any loving couple who want to remain together and provide a family for their children.
Well Mike
This is a typical tactic of James Dobson and his ilk – throwing around “stats” that never included gay parents to begin with in any of these studies he so loves to quote. It compares for the most part only heterosexual configurations of parenting – whereas the actual studies shows no significant difference, or perhaps a slightly better odds for kids growing up with two gay parents, probably because they have to work harder at it.
See here
Kevin,
This is a very sensitive issue, and I appreciate your initiation of this open discussion.
I think it is clear in the healthy differences between men and women (physically and emotionally), that a male-female union is the only true union.
Many questions are suppressed when one is trying to justify homosexuality, such as:
Why is it that homosexual union can produce no offspring?
If gay marriage is just as natural as straight marriages, why are we not equiped to have a sexual relationship with either gender?
The real issue is not whether homosexuality is natural or not, but whether it matters that it is unnatural.
If we were created, as I believe, then we were designed and homosexuality is a misuse of our design. If we are just the products of time + matter + chance, then it really doesn't matter if we chose to be unnatural.
The real issue is not whether homosexuality is natural or not, but whether it matters that it is unnatural.
If we were created, as I believe, then we were designed and homosexuality is a misuse of our design. If we are just the products of time + matter + chance, then it really doesn't matter if we chose to be unnatural.
Tichius
Unnatural in what sense? You argument seems to suggest that because a male and a female can produce offspring, that sex is therefore designed for only that purpose. The natural conclusion of your argument is that sex between to heterosexual people is only valid for that purpose, and all other uses of sex, such as for pleasure, therefore falls outside of the domain of the “natural” use of sex as well. Clearly, with medical technology where it is, it’s possible for homosexuals to produce offspring via surrogate mothers and donor sperm, etc. – so therefore homosexual couples are just as much capable of producing offspring as heterosexual couples. Unless you want to bent the definition of the word “natural” even for heterosexual couples that are unable to produce their own offspring “naturally” – your argument is a slippery slope.
There's also, of course, the biological studies of homosexuality in animals. It occurs in many species, from primates to dolphins, and it has been suggested that a homosexual gene occurs in order to prevent overpopulation of certain species.
Perhaps there is no need for every single individual to reproduce. And yet, most of us still have sex drives and feel the need to share our lives with a partner. So homosexuality, I would argue, is yet one more of nature's (or God's) ways of removing the likelihood of reproduction from certain individuals in order to maintain a steady and healthy population.
Of course, that's an impersonal argument and in no way removes the validity of the love and companionship shared by any couple, be they hetero or homosexual. It just poses a biological reason as to why homosexuality may have cause to occur - in any species.
400 years ago : marrying for love was consider not natural: The norm was arranged marriages in much of europe.
Heh, and i love this: the church 400 years ago said: if to marry for love were to be allowed over arranged marriages... that it would be a disaster and it would lead to same sex marriages...
Seems like the issue is not about same sex marriage folks. The real issue is about the human heart and the control of it.
Be free... be yourself!
With regards to Mike's comment about children and homosexual marriage: I believe that a loving and stable home environment is more important than gender related roll-models. If a homosexual couple (or a single homosexual person) can provide that stability and love for a child, then what is the problem?
I still can't understand why conservative Christian groups make such a fuss about homosexual marriage. They make it seem that the entire fabric of society will fall apart if homosexual marriage is allowed. I think their focus is misplaced, through: at this moment, heterosexuals seem to be causing massive damage to the institution of marriage (with the high divorce rates, abuse, etc). If conservative Christian groups are really concerned about marriage, they should place all their resources into trying to help heterosexual marriages, instead of trying to limit the freedoms of homosexual couples. One can argue that, at this present time, heterosexuals pose more of a threat to the institution of marriage.
Hmmm...I don't really see the point of homosexual marriage. Why would you want to enter into an institution that is religious and against homosexuality?
Is homosexuality natural? I don't think so. We are by Gods deisgn or by natures design ultimately here to continue our race, to pro-create and homosexuals cannot do that.
Children need both a mother and father for a balanced up bringing, this is the best we can do but it is not always possible, but gay parents I don't think it's such a good idea.
Can you be christian and gay...now that's a whole other deabte.
Hi Mike
Thank you for your comments. They got me thinking about the whole subject, and I just have a few comments:
ultimately here to continue our race, to pro-create and homosexuals cannot do that.
I know that many heterosexual couples who can’t procreate (due to medical problems). Some couples also choose not to have children. But I don’t see anybody making a fuss about their marriages.
Is homosexuality natural? I don't think so. We are by Gods deisgn or by natures design
How are you defining ‘natural’ here? What criteria are you using to determine what is natural and what is unnatural? The reason I ask is that I hear this argument all the time, but few explain what they mean by the word ‘natural’.
All the best
Kevin
Hi Kevin and all,
BTW Kevin you addressed your last post to me but they were marc's comments.
I think you have a point when you say that Christians should be concerned about marriage in general. Marriages are crumbling at an alarming rate and it doesn't seem to be getting any better.
So I was wondering, what resources might atheism provide to help marriages? If we agree that stable, loving families should be promoted and encouraged in societies, then what insights might atheism provide us with to do this? What moral truths might atheism stand on to tackle this problem?
Kevin. Not having the ability to concieve and not having the organs to have children are somewhat different.
Help such as IVF for couples who cannot have children due to a medical condition as opposed a sexuality. And you are right some couples do choose but for homosexuals their is no choice.
Nothing can be done for homosexuals to have children, it is and will always remain a physical impossibility.
Well I look at this in two ways:
1. If you are a Christian it is generally accepted that God is not in favour of homosexual relationships.
2. The opposite of this is the natural world where we are descended from apes, if all the apes had been homosexual then there would be no us and so the prime motivation for animals is to procreate.
Is there a middle ground that I am missing?
I think the middle ground comes firmly from the fact that people do not have partnerships with others purely to procreate. Procreation is, of course, important, but I would argue again that it's a very good thing a significant proportion of people don't procreate (for whatever reason), or the human race would become ridiculously overpopulated. Some would argue that it already has, but that's a different discussion...
My point is that a man and a woman don't fall in love, marry, and spend the rest of their lives together out of a sense of duty to keep the human race going. They spend their lives together because they love each other and because they desire that level of deep companionship. Following your logic leads to a conclusion that once the having of children is over, the marriage isn't valid. What's the point in an older couple staying together once they can no longer have kids?
The point is that they love each other. The point is, to me, that marriage, or any spousal relationship, is about love and a sharing of lives. And I cannot see how homosexual relationships can be excluded from this. I have a lesbian friend who is in a deeply committed relationship with her partner. They have no desire for children. I, personally, am in a deeply committed heterosexual relationship, and we also have no desire for children. Would you argue that one relationship had more validity than the other, or would you dismiss them both as 'unnatural' or somehow wrong? Because I simply can't see a difference.
I suppose the question would be 'why would you want a sexual relationship with someone of the same sex?
Men and women have all the attributes for a fully natural sexual loving relationship.
Same sex couples just don't, there is no way round that i'm afraid. That's not too say that they can't love each other but not in a natural sexual realtionship.
I would ask why is it when we are not in any way designed for a fully sexual loving same sex relationship that it is percieved as natural and normal when it clealry isn't?
I agree with Marc. You cannot argue that same-sex couples can raise children the same way a man and woman can. One of my professors is lesbian, and she and her partner are raising three boys. You cannot logically argue that two women can teach these boys to be men.
Legalizing gay marriage is not just ignoring a standard, but removing it completely.
If you say that marriage is no longer a loving relationship between a man and a woman, then what can it become? Anything.
There are pedifiles who argue that they love the objects of their affection, should they not also be respected for what they chose? Are we not discriminating against them by saying it's wrong?
Where do you draw the line?
There has to be structure, or freedom is no longer free.
Freedom does not mean anyone can do whatever they want, going wherever their sexual impulses lead them. Think of what kind of society that would be.
CS Lewis says, in his Great Divorice, that one may be free to enjoy drinking water and be refreshed, but he is not free to also enjoy being dry.
You cannot argue that same-sex couples can raise children the same way a man and woman can.
Perhaps you didn’t look at the link I provided earlier – children raised by homosexuals do slightly better. Your argument becomes even more moot with the divorce rate among Christians in America at the current rate. Of course a mother and a father is the best configuration for a child, but most homosexuals opt not to have children, but when they do, their children is not off worse than the average *christian* kid in America. Furthermore, going back to Biblical times, it’s more about the community they are surrounded with that shapes them as human beings, as opposed to only the sex of their parents.
One of my professors is lesbian, and she and her partner are raising three boys. You cannot logically argue that two women can teach these boys to be men.
Uhm, don’t how that relates, but most boys learn to be boys around other boys and not their fathers necessarily.
Legalizing gay marriage is not just ignoring a standard, but removing it completely.
Define your standard? Does it look something like marriage in the Old Testament or in the New Testament? Are you for polygamy and marrying off your daughter at the age of 13? If not, why not? After all, it’s the standard according to your Bible. That’s what the “traditional” marriage looked like.
If you say that marriage is no longer a loving relationship between a man and a woman, then what can it become? Anything.
That’s an argument from adverse consequences, and no-one says that it could be anything, but why could it not be at a minimum what society accepts today, less the restriction on the sex of the couple? How could gay marriage possibly harm you or your family? What exactly is it that you are afraid of?
There are pedifiles who argue that they love the objects of their affection, should they not also be respected for what they chose? Are we not discriminating against them by saying it's wrong?
Pedophilia is non consensual abuse an adult inflicts on a minor. The average homosexual relationship is between two CONSENTING adults. There is a difference.
Where do you draw the line?
The minute it harms you or any of our fellow creatures, then we can draw the line, but definitely not where uneducated and scientifically ignorant Bronze Age tribesmen decided it should be.
There has to be structure, or freedom is no longer free.
If freedom is no longer free then it wasn’t freedom to begin with. Problem is, you really have no right to take away the freedom from another human being to decide what they would like to do with their bodies, unless it harms you.
Freedom does not mean anyone can do whatever they want, going wherever their sexual impulses lead them. Think of what kind of society that would be.
Another argument from adverse consequences. There is a difference between normal sexual impulses and perverted sexual impulses.
Just as a matter of interest: do you think homosexuality is a choice or that homosexuals are born that way?
Mike wrote
BTW Kevin you addressed your last post to me but they were marc's comments.
Oops! My mistake! I sincerely apologise to you and Marc. There was so much discussion taking place on this post I got mixed up between all the comments. I think I should slow down when writing comments - I press the send button too quickly! :-)
You, Tichius, Marc, SkyWolf and eddie have raised very interesting points here. I’m busy compiling a response and will post up next week.
Thanks again for taking the time to comment
When told that homosexuality should be opposed, my attitude tends to be, "So when does what other people do in the bedroom start being any of MY business?"
I couldn't agree more. As long as sexual activity occurs in privacy between consenting adults, it's nobody else's business. Even between heterosexual couples, there are certain bedroom activities that one couple might engage in that another couple might totally shy away from. That doesn't make one right and the other wrong - it just means that sexual preferences and activity are extremely varied and a question of personal preference. If a heterosexual couple engages in S&M, would you condemn that as well because you, personally, wouldn't enjoy it? Or because the Bible doesn't advocate it?
The point has been brought up regarding where to draw the line... I would argue precisely the same in reverse. If you condemn consensual sexual activity between adults of the same gender, what other forms of activity would you declare 'unnatural' for two adults? A preference is just that... a preference. What I prefer may not be what you prefer, but I don't choose to restrict you and discriminate against you because I don't have the same preferences as you.
That said, I do not believe that homosexuality, for those predisposed to it and with no heterosexual feelings at all, is in any way a choice. To gay people, their feelings are completely natural. To deny them, as so many end up forced to do, is what is unnatural, and causes huge amounts of pain and confusion.
Not all sexual activity between husmans is healthy. There are instances when it is taken too far with dire consequences.
Damage can also be mental as well as psychological, there should be some standard we should all live by
Hi Lui and Skywolf,
I would be very careful with the privacy argument. If two adults consent to something in private, does this mean it is always right and should be allowed? How about drug use? How about cutting each other's arms and legs with knives? How about infecting each other with viruses?
The real question is whether homosexuality is damaging to the persons engaging in it. That is why we have drug laws, because we believe as a society that it damages the person and the people associated with that person. But the jury is still out on homosexuality. Most people probably believe that there is no harm done. No harm, no foul. But this still needs to be investigated, and I suppose that we will see more and more studies on this in the next several years, like the one that Eddie cited above about gay parenting.
Tichius, you said: Legalizing gay marriage is not just ignoring a standard, but removing it completely.
If you say that marriage is no longer a loving relationship between a man and a woman, then what can it become? Anything. There are pedifiles who argue that they love the objects of their affection, should they not also be respected for what they chose? Are we not discriminating against them by saying it's wrong? Where do you draw the line?
Here is a post I wrote back in May of this year which tells where the line is, and why there is no slippery slope about pedophilia, beastiality, and incest in regards to homosexual relationships. I hope you find it enlightening: Incest, Bestiality, and Pedophilia... Oh My!
Mike wrote:
So I was wondering, what resources might atheism provide to help marriages?
I’ve given your question some thought, and I would suggest – and I stand corrected here – that atheism doesn’t have anything to say on this issue. Correct me if I am wrong, but your question suggests that the successfulness of marriage is somehow linked to a belief (or unbelief) in God. I don’t think that there is any link at all: there are many Christian marriages; some that are successful, some that fail. There are many atheistic marriages; some that also fail and some that succeed.
So atheism has no prescribed resources because marriage is not built, and does not depend, on a belief (or unbelief) in God.
Marc wrote:
Men and women have all the attributes for a fully natural sexual loving relationship. Same sex couples just don't, there is no way round that i'm afraid.
As far as I understand, and I could be wrong here, homosexual couples can satisfy each other sexually.
Hi Kevin,
I think you miss the point, but you are right that I believe that success in marriage is linked to God. What I am not saying is that if you believe in God you will have a successful marriage. Just because someone says "I believe in God" this doesn't mean that success in marriage is guaranteed. Success in marriage depends on the people making choices themselves to do or not do certain things, to think or not think in certain ways throughout their marriage.
Certainly there are successful marriages among atheists. But what I am asking is what resources can an atheist worldview provide to help a rocky marriage? To help a marriage become even better? Of course, we can just take the position that if two people "fall out of love" then they should just split. But isn't this giving in too soon to self-centeredness and fleeting feelings? What about the children? And isn't love greater than our emotions? Can't two people work through their differences? What can an atheist worldview provide us with for this problem (if indeed we even see it as a problem)?
Kevin wrote:
As far as I understand, and I could be wrong here, homosexual couples can satisfy each other sexually.
That's not what I was saying Kevin, I said homosexual will never have a fully natural sexual loving relationship because, quite simply because they are not made for it and will never know that natural fullfilment.
mike: the phone book is chock-full of secular marriage counselors that help couples deal with their issues and problems. just because you don't look towards the bible for help, or to a counselor who works from a biblical perspective, doesn't mean there isn't hope or promise of something better.
marc: Um, I feel naturally satisifed. Is it just me?
I could argue you'll never be sexually satisifed until you've had a man--where does that leave us? (Probably with you going "EWW!!! I would never!")
So I guess I have to ask, what is natural? I mean, if we as human beings engage in it, it must be natural, right? Now going on a computer and typing on a machine is certaionly not natural, but here we are, talking away worlds apart form each other... no other animals go to church, bow in prayer, so one could argue, since this is also not seen in nature except by us, this is unnatural. Then, of course, we humans do a lot of things the animals don't, but we also do a lot of things that the animals do do, homosexuality among them--so what is this "natural" view point you are arguing from?
marc: Um, I feel naturally satisfied. Is it just me?
Me too – Marc has yet to define “natural” or “fully” without twisting the definition to fit the straight world as well. Who gets to define “natural?” As someone who had it “both” ways, I can implicitly tell you that the homosexual way is the only way that feels “natural” to me. So, how about that Marc?
Lui - ." I ask: what has that to do with you?
It's part of the discussion, if you don't want to hear other opinions then you may be in the wrong place.
Eddie. OK - Natural. Lets see. Men and Women are created with the sex organs that fit together, they are made for that specific use - that is what I would consider natural.
So eddie are you saying that if it feels natrual then that make behaviour correct because that is a very slippery slope. I mean there are paedaphiles that say their sexual desire feels natural to them but it clearly isn't natural is it.
Jason
marc: Um, I feel naturally satisifed. Is it just me?
that quote wasnt me.
Um, yes, it was, marc... you said ...quite simply because they are not made for it and will never know that natural fullfilment.
Oh, I get it; I was responding to the "they are not made for it" by saying to marc and my response was, "I feel satisifed." I just left out the "to" part of "to marc."
Is that clearer? :)
Men and Women are created with the sex organs that fit together, they are made for that specific use - that is what I would consider natural.
So are you saying that it’s the only way to stimulate those organs? I.E. – that one has to “fit” into the other? You do realize that both men and woman can reach orgasms without anything fitting into anything? So, is it unnatural for two heterosexual people to reach orgasm without penetration? Your premise seems to indicate this. Or do you believe the missionary position is the only “natural” acceptable method of sex? (Sorry for being graphic here.)
So eddie are you saying that if it feels natrual then that make behaviour correct because that is a very slippery slope. I mean there are paedaphiles that say their sexual desire feels natural to them but it clearly isn't natural is it.
You are setting up a false dichotomy between homosexuality and pedophilia, and I think we already answered that one efficiently.
At the end of the day I don't believe homosexuality is a natural state because you do not have the organs to reproduce if you wish.
Homosexuals don't and there is nothing that can be said to change that. If we were all homosexuals the human race would die out and that goes against the theory of evolution and Gods plan for the human race.
As a Christian I have no prejudices against homosexuals, any homosexual would be welcome in my church and my home but I'm afraid I can't agree it's a natural state of affairs.
If we were all homosexuals the human race would die out
And if we were all reproducing heterosexuals, the human race would need culling.
It would never do for us all to be the same. And the fact that something is natural doesn't mean that we all have to share it. Personally, I see nothing unnatural about homosexuality, as I illustrated at the beginning of this discussion. That doesn't mean I think everyone should be gay.
Brown eyes are natural. That doesn't mean other eye colours are unnatural. Heterosexuality is natural... but that doesn't mean homosexuality isn't.
skywolf you mean, we don't already need a good culling? LOL!
and marc? Homosexuals can reproduce, just not with their chosen partners... :)
Not that you don't know that, but people seem to think that us homo's don't have kids; we adopt kids, we do the surrogacy thing, we do what we have to (like a lot of barren straight couples) to have the families (some of us) dream of. Just because I will never be (nor will I ever impregnate) someone else via a sexual act doesn't mean we don't have kids--we just go about it a bit differently...
Could that be considered unnatural also? Perhaps. But so would in vitro. And even animals adopt kids. We've all heard the stories about a dog who found kittens and nurses them with her own pups; or the goat and the baby calf that lost it's mother; even one more recently where a baby rhino whose mother died asopted a giant tortoise as it's mother...
Just some food for thought.
Catch y'all later!
At the end of the day I don't believe homosexuality is a natural state because you do not have the organs to reproduce if you wish.
So, you ONLY have sex with you partner/spouse to reproduce? More than that would be “unnatural.” Of fucking course homosexuals have all the necessary organs to “reproduce” – maybe just not your definition of it.
Homosexuals don't and there is nothing that can be said to change that.
I beg to differ – there is more than ONE way to reproduce.
As a Christian I have no prejudices against homosexuals, any homosexual would be welcome in my church and my home but I'm afraid I can't agree it's a natural state of affairs.
You keep spinning your wheels on “natural” and you keep twisting the definition to fit your presupposition. Well Marc, you are wrong.
Discussion and opinions go both ways eddie, mine is as valid as yours but it does seem that you are incapable of accepting that someone else may have a differing opinion.
So think what you want or grow and learn, the choice is yours.
Discussion and opinions go both ways eddie, mine is as valid as yours but it does seem that you are incapable of accepting that someone else may have a differing opinion.
Please Marc, I didn’t deny you your opinion, I simply gave you MY opinion that I think YOUR opinion was wrong because of your circular logic.
And I wish the same for you: think what you want …
Mike wrote:
But what I am asking is what resources can an atheist worldview provide to help a rocky marriage? To help a marriage become even better?
As Jason mentioned, there are many non-Christian counseling methods that aim to keep marriages in place.
Hi Kevin and Jason,
I'm sorry but the mere presence of counselors does not mean that they have anything helpful or meaningful to say, and I would argue that it doesn't appear to be doing much good. This applies to both Christians and non-Christian counseling. What I am inquiring about is the actual content of the counseling... What ideas actually work? What ideas can really keep marriages together and thriving? What ideas can an atheist use and still be rationally consistent with his/her worldview? I would argue that the idea of unconditional love is the only idea that can cover all marital problems, and you can only get unconditional love (rationally that is) with God in the picture.
Hey Mike,
Having never had marital counseling, I have no idea what the content is. Knowing a few couples that have gone through it, both in a Christian and a non-Christian way, I can say that all the couples had unique problems, unique situations, and were given unique things with which to do to help them work through their problems.
You seem to conclude that "unconditional love" is not only the answer the all marital problems, but that a secular counseling service wouldn't even know of the concept--why is that? Unconditional love is certainly not unique to the christian faith; plus, dpeending on your brand of Christian faith, unconditional love isn't even part of the package.
Many cultures around the world have an ideal of love, a perfect picture of what unconditional love is and how to attain it. God is not a factor. Only people are. And only two people are when talking about a marriage--everyone else is baggage.
Are you implying there is no meaning outside of god? I think you tried posing that scenario earlier up in the conversation...
Meaning is irrelevant, in that, what I find meaningful you may think is total bunk. What you find meaningful I miught find to be a load of crap. Ever hear the phrase "One man's trash is another man's treasure"? One man's heaven is another's hell. One man's god is another's devil--ask any witch during the Salem Witch Trials... she'll tell you...
You are trying to find a universal where one doesn't exist, and ascribe a value to an non-constant. Love is an emotion, a feeling, and as such, is not only nonmeasureable, it is unknowable to any but the feeler of the love. Anyone else takes expressed love on faith, whether that be verbal, physical, mental, what-have-you. No one knows "how much" love is too much, too little, too many conditions, too little conditions, not sacrificial enough--everyone ascribes to themselves their own meaning of how much love--and how to give it, show it, recieve it, acknowledge it--in their own way. Counseling helps people to see how the other one tries to communicate not only their needs for love and its shown expressions, whether perceived or not, as well as the other myriad of emotions which are just as vitally important as love such as anger, jealousy, grief, sympathy, empathy, happiness, joy, sadness, despair--all these feelings and more are what goes into any relationship--not just marital ones. Counselors are there to help two people pick up on each other's signals, how to interpret them, how to communicate them, all of which are usually based on the models they each grew up with. God is nothing more than a metaphor, a cructh as it were, to help people understand that, and the world around them.
Granted, just my two cents, but unconditional love has nothing to do with god. Just everything to do with people...
Hi Jason,
Thanks for thinking about this with me, but I really don't think you have a grasp of what unconditional love really means. I think you used the term without knowing what it describes. You said:
"Love is an emotion, a feeling, and as such, is not only nonmeasureable, it is unknowable to any but the feeler of the love."
I'm afraid that this is a very deficient view of what love is. Sure, emotions are a huge part of love, but not all. What about when the feelings aren't there? What about when the other person says, "I hate you and I wish you were dead!" What about when you start feeling that same way toward someone else, maybe even your spouse, yet you sense deep down that you ought to love them. Love often times is a decision, not a feeling, and its grounded on a belief in the value of the other person. Often the feelings come after the decision, a natural byproduct of the decision. Unconditional love is love for someone else NO MATTER WHAT THE OTHER PERSON GIVES YOU. It is love for the unlovable, love for the enemy, love for the one who spits at you and wishes you were dead. It is in short, the love that Jesus displayed and the love he taught. This kind of love can only be grounded in a view that places a priceless value on other people, and I don't know of a worldview that gives each person a priceless value without God in the picture. There may be a worldview that SAYS people are priceless, but the metaphysical facts of the view don't support the claim. You can't just say, "Each person has an infinite value" and not have any metaphysical reason why this is the case. I believe you argued that many people know what unconditional love is and yet they don't believe in God, but my point is not whether someone knows what it is, but whether their worldview can rationally allow the concept - whether they can be consistent with their worldview and still champion unconditional love as the ideal.
Your view of love is also shown to be a bit deficient in your writing about how counselors help people. You said:
"Counseling helps people to see how the other one tries to communicate not only their needs for love and its shown expressions, whether perceived or not, as well as the other myriad of emotions which are just as vitally important as love such as anger, jealousy, grief, sympathy, empathy, happiness, joy, sadness, despair--all these feelings and more are what goes into any relationship--not just marital ones. Counselors are there to help two people pick up on each other's signals, how to interpret them, how to communicate them, all of which are usually based on the models they each grew up with."
Just to be clear, I agree that this is good, to learn how to listen to the other person, pick up their signals, take action to meet their needs, etc. But it is incomplete. What happens when the other person is not meeting my needs to my satisfaction? The tendency is to reduce the amount of love that I give back. And then when the other person sees that I am not giving as much love, he/she starts reducing their love for me even more, and people get caught in this vicious cycle. I think this whole scenario takes place so much because our view of love is too small, we think our spouse must earn our love, do good for me and I will do good for you... i.e., "My love is based on what you can give me. If you stop giving me love then I'll stop loving you." But if marriage is based on unconditional love, a decision to love this other person no mattter what, even when times are really tough... this view I think will clearly save more marriages than the view you have given. Now don't get me wrong, some marriages need to end, like in abusive situations, and when a spouse just quits and leaves... But the point is that unconditional love as a basis for marriage can go so much farther in helping people than the common "love me right and I'll love you right" view.
I have actually spoken briefly on my own blog about how love is definately a choice--I have to practice that with even my own flesh and blood at times! But choosing to feel something is still a feeling, i.e., I choose to love this person out of _____(obligation, duty, stubborness, hope). You can just as easily choose to hate as you choose to love...
And while you may decide to love a person no matter what, you are choosing to push this feeling to the forefront despite the other conflicting emotions you are feeling about this person you are wishing to show the love to. And how does one show love? Through communication, doing things, sometimes sacrificing, a touch, a kiss, a hug, a whisper... but they take it all on faith, as they know neither foir sure what you arte thinking or feeling, but can only surmise through what you express towards them...
I think you stopped thinking of anything but love when you came to the terms of what it means to be "unconditional." Of course you're right in that, despite the love you feel for someone you need to let them go... to show unconditional tough love, as it were.. :)
But just because you choose to love someone no matter what, not only does it not require a knowledge of god or jesus, it does require a working toward communicating your choice of feeling, why, how, and what the other person in the relationship also wants to show, feel, and communicate, all of which a counselor can point out and help with... The view I have given encompasses how to show the love, and, if the couple is seeking counseling (whether through the church or a secular organization), the fact that they are in counseling shows they are choosing to work through the tough times, to save the love they know they have for each other. It is taking your wish to show unconditional love into practical application. "Unconditional love" is a nice, fuzzy-warm idea, but without practical application, and sometimes a third-party to show how to utilize the practicality of your decisions to fight for what you _________(have, had, need, want) with the one you are choosing to fight for and with, unconditional love is nothing more than an ideal. You can choose to love someone unconditionally all you want, but if you don't know how to show it, how to communicate it, how to take that person and say "I love you no matter what," it's bunk and meaningless.
You again don't need a church or god to realize unconditional love, and you don't need them for showing that love either. You are still trying to marry the idea of uncondtional love to a religious entity or deity, but both are just middlemen that are unnecessary if your hearts are in the right place.
I don't know what kind of household you grew up in. My mother grew up in a house of total, conditional love. My grandmothers love for anyone in her family is always based on what we can do for her, what we can give to her, what the world in fact owes her, so my mom made doubly sure to make our house a home of unconditional, unselfish love. No strings attached, no limited warranty.
At times I'm sure she had to decide to love us. She had five kids in six years, probably went temporarily insane at that time, but none of us ever felt unloved. She chose to feel that for us, made it a counscious choice (but still just a feeling), and acted accordingly, in ways that would communicate her decision to feel that way.
I'm getting kind of rambly (sorry!), so, to summarize:
Love is a feeling, even if it is a chosen feeling. To love unconditionally needs no god. It only needs people who know they are worth fighting for. Which, I'm guessing, is why they sought counseling in the first place. They are putting their relationship above their individuality to an extent that requires an effort that run-of-the-mill wouldn't have happening.
You asked, "What happens when the person is not meeting my needs?" Is that really a factor in unconditional love? Even so, isn't that why you sought counseling? To understand what is going on between you and your partner? So that you can both learn how to meet each others needs? Perhaps I'm missing something in your argument... but I still don't see your connection between needing a christian perspective as opposed to a secular one...
Hi Jason,
Thanks again for the dialogue. I think you are caught in a mindset that many people find themselves in... The issue is not whether we can know or choose unconditional love, it is whether our worldview makes it rational to do so. Why is choosing to love others unconditionally the rational thing to do, as opposed to conditional love, given atheism? In my mind, if your worldview is atheistic, you can be rational with either choice. There is nothing in the worldview itself that would rationally compel someone one way or the other. Good arguments could be given for both sides - choosing to be an unconditionally loving person or a conditionally loving person. There is nothing within the worldview that would tip the scales. If you think there is I would like to hear it.
Most of have the ideal of unconditional love in our minds, but what is it that makes it an ideal? Can atheism provide a rational ground for this as an objective ideal?
Hi Lui,
I believe your reasoning is confused in a few areas. You wrote:
“Religion simply passes on this thing called "morality" to a higher entity, without really explaining anything. For example, consider "Is it immoral to torture babies because God says it is, or does God oppose the torture of babies because it is immoral"? If God has free will, then he can commit immoral acts if he so wanted. But why doesn't he? "Because such acts are immoral, so God wouldn't commit them." But again, why are they immoral?”
Your argument hinges on a faulty conception of free will and a faulty conception of the grounding of morals. First of all, free will is not to be understood (as it commonly is misunderstood) as “being able to choose any course of action.” Can you choose to flap your arms and fly? No, nor can any human being. Does this mean that humans don’t have free will? No, it just means that our human nature does not allow us to do certain things. But we still make free choices. So it is with God – God’s nature is perfectly good. It’s not so much that he CANNOT choose evil as it is that he does not WANT to do evil, because it’s evil! God does not think to himself, “Boy I wish I was able to do evil… confound this perfectly good nature that restrains my freedom!” No, God knows evil for what it is, and his character is so maximally good that he will never ever do evil.
Second, you ask the question, “Why are immoral acts immoral?” You seem to argue that there is no ground of morality if it is not based on God’s decision, and if it is based on God’s decision than this is just arbitrary. There is a third option that you did not consider. I think it best to understand objective morals as grounded in God’s character, his nature. God’s character provides the foundation for the goodness and badness of all things, and that’s where the objectivity arises because God is the understood as the Creator and provident sustainer of the entire universe. Thus, our actions no matter where we are, when we are, or who we are, are always measured against God’s character. If you don’t believe this explains as well as your explanation, well we will just have to agree to disagree. Although you do seem to abandon objective morals altogether, which I believe is a very shaky position to take because it leaves you with no rational ground to criticize the moral decisions of others, like the Nazis, the Taliban, and Christian fundamentalists to name a few groups.
You brought up some of the questionable stories in the Old Testament about God ordering violence against others (including children). This is a very difficult subject indeed, but there have been many Christian writers who have tried to tackle this issue. There is a recently written book called “Four Views on the Canaanite Genocide” which I have not read but it sounds interesting. I am simply not able to discuss this subject here without writing a whole lot.
Anyway, thanks for the discussion.
Hi Lui,
Our dialogues just keep getting longer and longer lol
You say:
“It's all very well to say that God is perfectly "good". But what is "good", and why is God like that? Is it not enough to be good for the sake of goodness? Why must we invoke God to be good ro to even speak of morality? I certainly don't need to, and God is a million miles form my thoughts when I do something nice for someone else."
I put the question back to you: What is "good"? You believe in "good" apparently, but what is it? Is it objective? Is it just your opinion? What is evil? Are there things that are really wrong all the time, despite what peoples' opinions are? The question is not whether you Lui KNOW what good is, again, the question is HOW YOUR WORLDVIEW CAN RATIONALLY JUSTIFY THE EXISTENCE OF OBJECTIVE GOOD. It's a metaphysical question, not an epistemological one.
You then say:
"I am arguing that morality is something that cannot help but being subjective. If morality is just defined as "God's character", then we are basing morality on something fundamentally unknowable. (everything below God is necessarily incapable of understanding him, otherwise he wouldn't be God, an infinite and all-powerful being)."
So now you admit that you believe morality is subjective, but then why do you speak of doing good for goodness’ sake in the previous paragraph? Are you trying to convince us that you believe in doing good for goodness’ sake, even though there is no such thing as objective good for whose sake you are supposedly doing it? Is it because our society has agreed that certain things are good and certain things are bad, and so you want to reassure us that you agree with what the consensus of society believes? In that case, you do good because of what society thinks, or because of evolutionary programming, not for goodness’ sake. Remember, you believe that there is no goodness for whose sake you claim to be doing it.
And your thinking about the unknowability of God is clearly flawed. You argue: "everything below God is necessarily incapable of understanding him, otherwise he wouldn't be God, an infinite and all-powerful being)." So, because God is infinite and "above" us he is therefore unknowable? It seems that you are arguing that because we cannot know EVERYTHING about God, because we can never exhaust our knowledge of an infinite being, than we can't know ANYTHING about him? Do you know everything there is to know about the atom? No? Then you don't know anything about the atom… That obviously doesn't follow, right? Do you know everything about the universe? Clearly no. But we still know a lot about it don't we? You obviously know enough about God to talk about him, to say that he is all-powerful and the like. And most people on this planet think they know enough about God to talk about him, describe him, write about him, pray to him, think about him, etc. Plus, the concept of "infinite" when applied to God is not a given that all Christians believe. It's an issue that is debated among philosophers.
Then you write:
"My moral system is grounded in rationality, and that rationality tells me that morality is not an objective thing. There is no contradiction at all in that when you really think it through.”
Please think it through for me to show this, because I can’t see what you see.
“I make no appeal to unsubstantiated entities for which there is no scientific evidence; I take into account people's feelings because I can empathise with them."
So, rationality is your ground, and apparently this rationality leads you to think that science is the only avenue for knowledge. How did your rationality lead you to this conclusion, given the epistemological limits of science? And how do you account for the existence of reliable rationality via natural selection/evolution? I believe that rationality actually leads us to the belief in objective good. That is what I am trying to reason here.
Then you talk about empathizing with others feelings, and making moral judgments apparently on this. So, pain and suffering is something we ought to prevent because we know how it feels – it hurts – and we don’t want others to feel that. But why ought we to feel this way, given atheism? Isn’t someone rational within atheism to have no empathy for others? It seems to me that empathy is based on the value of other people, and your worldview has not provided us with an account of each person’s value. An atheist can be rational within atheism and believe that other people are valueless and can be used to serve whatever selfish purposes he/she may have. This is what Jeffrey Dahmer reasoned. If empathy alone is your moral compass, should we not be concerned about animal suffering too? Should we not campaign against the senseless killing of ants? Again Lui, the issue is not THAT you have empathy or moral sensibilities, it is WHY we should have them given atheism.
You can’t say that morality is subjective and then argue for morals that we ought to follow. This is just inconsistent. You can’t have it both ways.
Then you wrote:
"The Nazis and the Taliban were quite incapable of employing these emotions to the extent that would have stopped them from carying out atrocities. And they carried out these atrocities thinking they had the full moral support of God."
So, because some people commit atrocities because they think God approves, this somehow counts against the case for God… Is this why you brought this up? Because if so, it is interesting that the atrocities committed by Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Jeffrey Dahmer, the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, AND many if not most Nazis (check your history again) were done for the sake of atheism. Does this count against atheism? Can’t we just agree that there are crazy fanatics on both sides?
Hi Lui,
I'm sorry but I will be going out of town for the next several days, and I sense that we aren't going to go any further with this, so this will be my last post. But I can't help ending with a few points:
- I will grant you the Nazi point, but you failed to address Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Jeffrey Dahmer, and the Khmer Rouge, and honestly I don't know why you can't agree that there are fanatics on both sides and so we shouldn't judge the idea system on those who abuse it. You ask me why my interpretation of following God is better than the Taliban's, but do you not see that the same question applies to you with respect to Stalin and the rest? So I hope this issue can just be dropped.
- I believe if you read through your last post, particularly your account of the grounding of morality, and the first few paragraphs, you might be able to see that you are actually arguing for both an objectivity and subjectivity of morals at the same time. In one paragraph you assert that moral judgments are just an opinion, and in the next paragraph you say it's not just an opinion, but it's based on other things like utilitarianism, empathy, etc. Now maybe we have a difference in understanding of what objectivity means, but to me one of the things that objectivity means is that there are rational grounds for why everyone should adopt a particular moral system. You seem to be trying to persuade others to adopt your morals based on empathy, rationality, societal peace (which boils down to self-interest), evolutionary progress, morality as an emergent property on the mind... and BTW, how in the world does saying that something is an "emergent" property provide a better explanation than pointing to something supernatural? Your complaints about needing an explanation for why God is good apply equally to your accounts of "emergent" properties and everything else? Does the belief that the universe "just is" escape your own criticisms of the need for an answer to "why is it that way?" Shouldn't you apply an equal degree of skepticism to your own accounts as you do to theism? I don't think that pointing to God as the explanation of all this phenomena complicates the situation, rather it unifies it. Without God as the unifying entity we are left with a vast array of unexplained entities.
- Continuing along the same lines, you wrote: "I see morality as something very special and very much worth fighting for largely because it's subjective." I do not see how this makes any sense at all. I am trying to see how this is not contradictory, but I can't. I know you are still working through this in your mind as you said, but to me it sounds like you are saying that you will fight for your subjective morality, which to me implies that you will try to persuade others to adopt your subjective morality because you believe other people (and perhaps everyone) should follow it... How will you persuade people without appealing to objective grounds? Indeed you already have appealed to objective grounds (evolution-programmed empathy, rationality, self-interest), and these grounds all fail to do the job:
Evolutionary-programming: Some people's genes may program them to be killers or thieves or whatever.
Rationality: Natural selection cannot guarantee that our rational faculties are reliable. Plus, people reason to different conclusions.
Self-interest: There are good acts in which self-interest plays no part. Good actions do not always make us feel "good" inside. Many evil actions make some people feel good inside.
- Ultimately, all a person has to say to you is "I do not choose your morality. You have no objective reasons why I should choose your morality over mine." Please understand me Lui, I am not saying that you cannot be a moral person who pursues the good. I trust you are a moral person... What I am saying is that you have no rational grounds with the worldview of atheism for believing that your morality is any more "moral" than anyone else's. You may say and believe it is, but as soon as you start appealing to objective reasons, you have just crossed the line into a belief in objective morals, and once there you must account for their existence in a materialist worldview.
I suppose we'll chat about this more in the future, and I will try to read your next post here if there is one. Thanks again.
Hi Lui,
I think "emergent" is another way of saying "We have no idea what this thing is, but we think that it comes from this other thing, so let's just call it 'emergent'" This sounds like naturalism-of-the-gaps. If we find things in our universe that just do not look like anything physical, nor do they look like anything that could come from mindless, physical, stuff, than I think we should be a little more open minded and at least allow for the possibly of extra-natural realities as we search for truth.
I really don't find the "You've got to explain God" argument persuasive, because after all you have to stop somewhere right? I think it makes much more sense to stop with God - a being who embodies and defines goodness and a being who is the source and sustainer of all the contingent realities we observe - than it is to stop with the contingent realities themselves. This is what it really boils down to: Which explanation provides an adequate stopping point?
Finally, you fail to give an objective basis for morality, because evolution simply cannot guarantee the production of a moral code that everyone agrees with. If morals are up to us, everyone can have an opinion. Torturing babies could be okay for some people - but our gut says its not okay for ANYONE. If it's up to God (more accurately, grounded in his nature), then everyone's opinion is measured against one standard, and there is a real answer to the question, "Is this good/evil?"
Just out of curiosity, do you believe that some things are always wrong no matter what someone's opinion is? And are some things always good no matter what?
Hi Lui,
You write:
"Science is continuing to squeeze God out of the functioning of the universe more and more. Pick up any issue of "Scientific American Mind", and you'll see how science is closing in on some of the deepest questions faced by humanity."
I think you need to reevaluate what science can and cannot provide us with. Science is a method, not a philosophy. Naturalism is the philosophy, and science can be used by naturalists and theists alike as an avenue for knowledge. But science cannot provide us with answers to every question. Can science provide us the answer to what electricity actually is? The strong force in the atom? Gravity? Numbers? Goodness? Consciousness? Can science tell us why things are the way they are? I really suggest again a philosophy of science class.
You ask me to see how science is squeezing God out of the universe, but I think you are mistaken... discoveries in the last few decades are actually making God more and more plausible. Scientists are now very confident that the universe had a beginning (Big Bang), and that the initial conditions had to be extremely precise in order to result in the arrival of life... Molecular biology has shown that there is quite literally nanotechnology in the cell, nanotechnology so brilliantly engineered that it causes us to wonder if it was designed... Quantum physics observes particles appearing out of nowhere and disappearing into nothingness... Astrophysicists have found that our planet is situated in our galaxy and our universe in such a perfect place that allows us to actually make scientific observations of the universe that we would not be able to make situated anywhere else, and they are discovering just how finely tuned all of the conditions on earth need to be to create/sustain life. It is not science that is squeezing God out, it is scientism, or naturalism if you will. And I must say again that I am NOT saying that these evidences provide absolute 100% proof as you seem to think I say when you write: "that's no license to say that THEREFORE those things are extra-physical." I am just saying, let's not be so constrained by naturalism that we will not even consider extra-natural realities. Let's not be afraid to consider all possibilities. Let's admit all theories and argue for which one is most plausible given all the data. Otherwise, we’re just being stubborn in our bias.
Also, I think it would be good to think about the nature of matter itself. This might sound weird, but think about what physical “stuff” really is. I think it is helpful because when we consider something like consciousness, physical stuff does not seem capable of producing mental phenomena in principle, or metaphysically speaking. Physical stuff follows natural laws mechanically, but mental phenomena do nothing of the sort. Unless ALL matter has consciousness (panpsychism), perhaps it does, but no philosopher today takes this extreme position.
You write:
"Yes, we do have to stop somewhere, but that's not to say that God is the place to stop. In fact, why not BEGIN with God, as nothing comes close to matching his intricacy, sophistication, etc. To "stop" at God is to explain nothing at all. It's only to say "God did it"."
Does God have intricacy? Does God have DNA? Organs? Please explain how you conceive of God as having complexity, intricacy, patterns, codes, whatever.
If you and a partner found a cave drawing of, say, a bunch of buffalos, and your partner says, "These drawings must have been done by someone, let's find out about these people." Would you say, "No, no, that would just complicate the situation. It will not help us explain anything to find out who did this." That would be rather foolish, right? Don't you think that stopping at the cave drawings themselves is stopping far short of a satisfying explanation? God does not complicate the explanatory process, he unifies it. Perhaps instead of excluding God altogether as an explanation you should allow for it at least as one of the options, and then select the option you think is most plausible. To exclude God altogether looks like evasion to me.
Finally, in response to God being the ground for objective morality you wrote:
“That would be convenient (and history has shown the horrors that this convenience is capable of producing, hence the move to secular systems of justice and morality in modern democracies) but it is no reason at all to believe to think that it's true. The universe doesn't owe us a living, it doesn't owe us comfort. The problems we face are complex ones, and it does them no justice to try to simplify them so arbitrarily by invoking a being who could tomorrow end all suffering but who has nevertheless allowed horrors in his name to be carried out, horrors that are supposedly against his nature.”
Please stop judging an idea based on those who distort it. This is just irresponsible and evasive. I do not agree with how people have used God to justify evil. Remember, people have used atheism to justify evil too, but I am not arguing that therefore ALL atheistic ethical systems lead people to justify evil practices. All I am saying is that if you want objective morals – morals that apply to everyone at every time in every place – then you must have a metaphysical ground for their existence, and our best option is God. This is not an arbitrary conclusion, because all the other evidence for God’s existence is also taken into account. Actually it is your moral theories that rely on arbitrary opinions of humans about what every human should do. Think about it. No matter how much you say that some moral action is the rational thing to do, someone else can say, “I don’t agree. I think I should be selfish.” Every other option besides God does not produce objective morals.
You also threw in there the problem of evil. So, you think God should stop all these horrible things that happen. Given free will, people will do good and bad things right? So, if God stopped all evil things, then we would not be free, so he has to allow us the power to do these evil things… But shouldn’t God draw the line somewhere? But where should he draw the line? Where is the threshold of allowable evils and unallowable evils?
Hi Lui,
I'm back, but I don't know if this is too late and whether you will even see this, but...
Why is it bad if God violates the laws of physics? He gives a gift to creation - the laws of physics, life, everything else - but he can't do anything more? He can't interact with his beloved creation? As a parent, he wants to be in constant relationship.
Lui, I really think you need to spend time thinking about the last issue I posted in the email before my previous one, about the problem of evil and where God should draw the line in preventing evil. This seems to be a real sticking point for you, and so I challenge you to think some more about it, because I don't think you have thought it all the way through.
I'm sorry that you're an ex-christian. being gay doesn't make a christian a non-christian. i don't know if your repulsion of conservative christians caused you to reject your faith?
Post a Comment