While reading a debate from 1829 out of curiosity for the Christian Restoration Movement and skepticism before Darwin, the real choices between agnostic atheism and Christian faith stand apart. The debate is one between a Christian preacher, Alexander Campbell, and a skeptic, Robert Owen. Owen opposed all religion as false and Campbell defended Christianity. Each man was more than qualified to defend his position. Now, I may have more favorable points from this debate later, but for now, one point stands out in the context of the early spread of the Christian faith in contrast to opposing beliefs. Campbell’s words are revealing,
“On the one side superstition and the sword, the mitred hand and the sceptered arm combine; on the other, almighty truth alone pushes on the combat. Under these fearful odds the truth triumphs, and shall the advocates of such a cause fear the context now?
Yes, my fellow-citizens, not a king nor a priest smiled upon our faith until it won the day. It offered no lure to the ambitious; no reward to the avaricious. It offered no alliance with the lusts of the flesh, the lusts of the eyes, nor the pride of life. It disdained such auxiliaries. It aimed not so low. It called for self-denial, humility, patience, and courage, on the part of all its advocates; and promised spiritual joys as an earnest of eternal bliss. By the excellency of its doctrine, the purity of its morals, the rationality of its arguments, the demonstration of the Holy Spirit, and the good example of its subjects, it triumphed on the ruins of Judaism and idolatry. The Christian volunteers found the yoke of Christ was easy and his burden light. Peace of mind, a heaven-born equanimity [composure], a good conscience, a pure heart, universal love, a triumphant joy, and a glorious hope of immortal bliss, were its reward in hand. An incorruptible, undefiled, and unfading inheritance in the presence of God, with the society of angels, principalities and powers, of the loftiest intelligence and most comprehensive knowledge, brighter than the sun, in the glories of light and love eternal, are its rewards in future.
But now, let us ask, what boon [blessing], what honor, what reward have our opponents to offer for its renunciation? Yes, this is the question which the sequel must develop. To what would they convert us! What heaven have they to propose! What immorality to reveal! What sublime views of creation and a creator! What authentic record of the past! What prophetic hope of the future! What account of our origin! What high ultimatum of our destiny! What terrors have they to offer to stem the torrent of corruption! What balm and consolation to the sons and daughters of anguish! To these and a thousand kindred questions, they must, and they will answer, none; none at all. They promise to him that disbelieveth the Founder of the Christian religion; to him that neglects and the salvation of the gospel; to him who tramples underfoot the blood of the New Institution, and insults the Spirit of favor; to him who traduces [slanders] Moses, Daniel, and Job; to him who vilifies Jesus, Paul, Peter, James, and John; to him who devotes his soul to the lusts of the flesh; who disdains heaven; who defies his appetites; who degrades himself to a mere animal, and eulogizes philosophy; to this man they promise eternal sleep, and everlasting death. This is the faith, the hope, and joy, or which they labor with so much zeal, and care, and pain” (Campbell Owen Debate. Nashville: McQuiddy Printing Company, 1946.)
What really is the alternative to Christ? What are the great things that one looks unto apart from Christ? Even though “all that is in the world” appeals to my own desires, “the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life”. These do not appeal to my conscience with my thoughts accusing or even excusing me while Christ’s Law is written on my heart. I would rather have a pure conscience than satisfied flesh, eyes filled with pleasure, and all the power and possessions of the world, which I can never obtain for the desires of a body that will eventually turn to dust. “For what is a man profited if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?”
The non-believer will try to extract some of God’s ideals, love and truth, from this world, but they will never strive to live apart from “the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life”.
Seeing God's Breath 
So, what are you going to do about those fulfilled predictions from Bible? You’re not going to even recognize them. That’s the willful ignorance at work. You’re also condemning Jesus to Hell for being angry. Are you the just judge?
I appreciate your presentation of how skeptics err in logic and truth for their own desires and pride. You claim that there is no such thing as macro and micro evolution though the scientific world disagrees. You ignore all forms of evolution now relying upon the adaptation of E. coli. How strange is it that one of the simplest life forms does not have its DNA mapped? How strange is that though no animal is fully observed and understood in its processes of life that those scraping for evidence for their imaginative conjectures.
Why are you attacking Protestant theology with me? Why are you addressing Protestant theology in the context of Alexander Campbell’s statements above? Campbell believes that baptism is necessary. Which Protestant theology are you trying to refute: the Baptists, the Mennonites, the Methodists? Shouldn’t you go address them? This doesn’t change the fact that you don’t understand Biblical Christianity nor what you’re arguing against.
You think all sin is equal. I don’t even think that is a Protestant belief. It isn’t in the Bible. You still have no concept of the condemnation of sin. Don’t you know that God is not hate or murder? How can we be in His eternal presence with such guilt? Do you think unrepentant hateful people will be in Heaven? You don’t make much sense. On another point, as you saw your error, Christ redeems sinners and not the sin. That’s not nit picky. That’s crucial.
Oh, the torture of wearing mixed fiber clothes and not hating people! The instructions of the OT were govern the people, keep health for those serving, present types for the NT, and most important bring in the New Law. The laws that appear ridiculous in the OT were put there to be symbolic examples.
As for the rest of your errors, these are still refuted above. I see nothing further to comment on. Honestly, if you weren’t addressing me openly, I wouldn’t have carried these thoughts on more than you’re own personal interest in obeying the Gospel.
LikeLike
You are certainly ignorant of the Christian theology. You believe that sin is redeemed.
I can’t let this one go. It makes no sense. Christ is “the Redeemer”, no? Are you trying to pick nits here or do you really think what I’m saying is so off base.
From Websters:
Redeem def: to free from the consequences of sin
Forgive def: to give up resentment of or claim to requital for
Absolve def: to set free from an obligation or the consequences of guilt
2 : to remit (a sin) by absolution
So, Jesus’ death does not free believers from the consequences of sin? Does it rather give up resentment of or claim to requital of sin? Or possibly set free from the obligation or consequence of sin? Or, remit sins?
Unless you have a big suprise up your sleeve you are picking theological nits here and you need to re-examine your arguments. If I put “Jesus redeemer” into Google the first page is a treatise on how Jesus pays our debts to God for sinning and thus redeems our sins. ( http://tinyurl.com/5y3swv )
Are you arguing that sin is not redeemed, rather people are redeeemed? That’s nitpicking as well. Does it matter to my argument to what noun the verb redeem is applied? In this context it doesn’t matter.
Please save the theological nitpicking and tortuosity for arguments in which it matters.
LikeLike
Except you can’t prove macro-evolution, organic, cosmic, stellar, planetary, and, or chemical evolution, but only slap the title “micro-evolution” on genetic drift and adaptation and then boldly and arrogantly declare “Evolution is true.”
First: There are no such thing as cosmic, stellar, planetary, or chemical evolution. Evolution is the study of living things and natural selection. By the very definition of the word it excludes planets and the solar system.
Second: There is no such thing as “micro” or “macro’ evolution and never has been. Evolution occurs over time with a progression of small changes.
I assume you conflate your idea of micro and macro evolution with speciation but define it not as speciation but change from one “kind” into another. You leave “kind” undefined, however. In doing this you warp the basic idea of evolution into something it is not. I’m making assumptions based on your previous arguments on this blog.
Have you seen this research?
http://tinyurl.com/6onuuj
This research shows unequivically that a population of E. coli evolved a method to eat citrate without first having the ability encoded in their genes and without having any outside DNA added to their genome. The protein changes needed to do this are huge as E. coli would need to significantly remodel it’s cellular transport protiens to make this happen. The chances of this happening are 1 trillion to one and yet it happened, in a controlled lab setting no less.
One of the definitions of E. coli as a species is the inability to utilize citrate, so by independently evolving this ability we have basically witnessed the birth of a new species.
You can spout on about macro evolution if you want but the term itself does not exist in science. You can spout on about irreducible complexity or the improbability of mutation causing speciation if you want to. The fact is that it has occured and will continue to occur and this research proves that vanishingly small probabilities can still effect a species in drastic ways in only 20 years.
Just because you haven’t been to the South Pole is no excuse to argue that endless night and endless day do not occur or that the compass needle doesn’t wander aimlessly. Similarly, to argue that evolution does not occur simply because you haven’t seen a dog turn into a cat but have seen related organisms develop into new species either through the fossil record or within our own lifetime in a petri dish is asinine.
You believe that faith and confession are the only things needed for initial salvation.
I realize from your diatribes about baptism what your beliefs are, however, the pantheon of protestant beliefs certainly encompasses my statement. I have been personally told numerous times that all one needs is to accept Christ into their heart to be saved. I’m not here to nitpick in comparative theology and the role of baptism or other minutia.
“Anger does not make one equal to a murderer…Hate is murder. “Whosoever hates his brother is a murderer: and you all know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him” (1 John 3:15). Hatred is a condemning sin that has come upon most people though the Apostle Paul being a literal murderer was saved.”
You went in circles here or at least failed to prove your point. Are you trying to prove anger is not equal to hate? That makes sense but does not change the argument that an unrelated sin is being equated with murder. Hate is still, by definition, not the same as murder yet you believe that making the mistake of hating someone is equal to making the ‘mistake’ of purposely killing another human being. Hate may be a mistake, murder, by definition is not a mistake but a conscious act.
This tortuosity is exactly the reason I do not believe. If hate is equal to murder, yet all sins are equal, what is the point of even making the distinction. All sins are redeemed in the same way, there is no hierarchy. So, in effect if not in definition, all sins are equal before God. Yet, do you really think that being angry with your brother is equal to killing him? Both send you to eternal torment in hell-fire according to your beliefs. Indeed, a simple lustful thought is equal to murder in this scenario. Furthermore, prior to the last half of the 1st century BC wearing mixed fibers was a sin punishable not only by eternal hell-fire but by death in the physical world administered by your own people.
I could never worship a god who would do that, nor could I worship a god who, despite being all powerful and all seeing, was unable to decide on a set of rules and stick with it.
Your argument is unconvincing, however, it does provide a nice example of “tortuous theology” from your own words to help prove my “unfounded assertion”. If the assertion – anger doesn’t equal hate, but hate equals murder, but hate, anger and murder all equal eternal hell-fire – is not tortuous I don’t know what is.
LikeLike
The predictions are there! You’d have to take the position that these are the forgeries of liars. Don’t be so ignorant. The Messiah was to suffer and die publicly in having his hands and feet pierced (Is. 53, Ps. 22). Hostile witnesses such as Tacitus and Lucian confirm this to have occurred. The LXX and the Dead Sea Scrolls confirm that these predictions existed before Jesus. There’s empirical evidence. We could conjecture that the Gospel writers could not be just delusional, but deliberate and genius liars who conformed Jesus into all 300 predictions of the NT or accept that Jesus really is the Christ. There are other predictions such as Daniel prediction of the Medo-Persions being conquered by Greece (Dan. 8). Strangely, Daniel is the only book for which the center is written Persian Aramaic, and never a 2nd century dialect of Palestine. Add to this 65+ predictions in Daniel 11. If you’re not going to believe these writers, then you must believe that they are extremely genius liars and not delusional. Add to this the predictions of the Jesus in the Gospels of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70. How is it that Luke was quoted by Paul who died before 70 and that the sequel to Luke, Acts, ends before the death of Paul? How was it that there were no Christians in Jerusalem when it was sacked in 70?
I’m not ignoring Pascal’s wager. It doesn’t prove faith, but presents the foolishness to not consider the Christian faith to some extent. If that’s you point, then I agree. This is not what Campbell presents above, but that Christianity came with divine morality with a heavenly hope, and evolution comes in materialism presenting men as animals lusting to survive by dictating to or warring with each other from animal lusts for survival and apart from the necessities of survival. Evolution comes teaching the world that it is a high knowledge that can only be attained in specific fields and on high levels excluding the common man to be publicly taught that he is a beast while the Christian faith affirms that God calls all to repent.
“Evolution is design; design through an iterative process of selection.” Alright, so your faith is that evolution designs things. Except you can’t prove macro-evolution, organic, cosmic, stellar, planetary, and, or chemical evolution, but only slap the title “micro-evolution” on genetic drift and adaptation and then boldly and arrogantly declare “Evolution is true.” You have a blind faith in an outrageous claim that there can be design without a designer.
No matter what religions came before Christ. Christianity does make the plea to be the first faith from Adam to Abraham through Moses to Christ. God made man a conscience so man recognizes it. You are certainly ignorant of the Christian theology. You believe that sin is redeemed. You believe that faith and confession are the only things needed for initial salvation. You really don’t know what you are arguing against.
God made everyone to be able to believe by their choice (1 Tim. 2:4, 2 Pet. 3:9). Everyone can know that God exists by observing the Creation (Rom. 1) and recognizing their conscience (Rom. 2) for God promises seek and you will find. The fact of the matter is that you can believe but you don’t. The Scriptures make it clear it because you continually sin thus offending your conscience, so you are hostile to anyone who reminds you offenses to your conscience (John 3). This is because you are offended by my faith calling it, “the tortuous theology” (an unprovable assertion).
Anger does not make one equal to a murderer. You’re confusing or they are confusing two different passages. Matthew 5:21-22, “You all have heard that it was said to them of old time, You shall not murder; and whosoever shall murder shall be in danger of the judgment: (22) but I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; and whosoever shall say, You fool, shall be in danger of the hell of fire.” Anger was Christ’s reaction in the temple where merchants made worship into a business of greed. Christ is not condemning Himself nor claiming sin. Hate is murder. “Whosoever hates his brother is a murderer: and you all know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him” (1 John 3:15). Hatred is a condemning sin that has come upon most people though the Apostle Paul being a literal murderer was saved.
God’s rule from the beginning was eminent death for sin even in the garden of Eden. In other words, you choose to be with Me or separate yourself from Me by sinning (Is. 59:1-2). Separation from God is death (2 Thes. 1:7-9) hence the need for reconciliation. All we have to do is not sin, but there are none who have not sinned. Still, God sent Christ to restore man again despite his sin. Without free will and the choice to choose sin, then there could not be a way to choose and display love, so God did more. Death is the separation of the spirit from the body (James 2:26), and the spiritual death is separation from God (Is. 59:1-2, 2 Thes. 1:7-9).
Walking off with a pen is not a sin. It is not theft. It’s a mistake. Walking off with a pen is as much theft as accidentally killing a careless pedestrian with your car is murder.
AS for Hell, Hell-fire was prepared for the devil and his angels (Matt. 25:41), but since man chooses to sin, then he is separated from God (Is. 59:1-2). Hell is most importantly described as eternal destruction from the presence of God for those who do not know God nor obey Him (2 Thes. 1:7-9). Each person will received their just stripes their appropriate levels of punishment (Luke 12:47-48). This is the point that God being the total source of comfort and rest, then this leaves the unrepentant sinner separate from God in the state of pain and unrest when dead. As the Scriptures say, “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God” (John 3:17-18). God being just has prepared a way of escape. Jesus said, “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light” (Matt. 11:28-30).
LikeLike
http://goodpersontest.com/
I thought this was interesting. Take it if you want. Pay specific attention to the question about anger.
So, do you believe that Mattew 5 is literally correct and that if you have been angry with someone without cause you are considered a murderer? (You realize that the ‘without cause’ was added later so any anger equals murder)
I realize that faith allows those sins to be forgiven, but don’t you think that is a dim view of the world to feel that everyone deserves hell-fire for as much as walking off with a pen?
LikeLike
See you continue to ignore the evidences as a delusional man would believe that there no other continents
Christians are not the only ones with self professed “fulfilled predictive prophesies”. If I were one of those religions I would be the same as an atheist to you, no? The evidence for these prophesies is simply not there.
I don’t really care about your contentions with Pascal’s wager. You can go write a post on it.
Interesting that you would ignore one of the primary epistimological questions of faith in Western history. This says something about your willingness to question.
From your own source, Marc Hauser wrote the book, “How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong”. So, is there or is there not design in nature?
Evolution is design; design through an iterative process of selection. That you don’t understand that and instead assume that the word design cannot be used by evolutionists shows how shallowly you argue the issue. The fact that design is there is not up for debate, it is the mechanism. I believe evolution presents a more factually based explanation, you obviously do not. No harm no foul.
do you need a Harvard psychologist to tell you that you have or had a conscience? The Scriptures have said this all along,
Who said this before the bible was written, indeed before Paul put it down in Romans? There were plenty of religions before yours you realize. If you want to hold up your moral standard as innate you must then explain why it was so late on the scene.
Humankind has little if any free will. Who is to hold anyone accountable for their actions? Does not the atheist make the same argument to the theist?
The society holds people accountable, and holds them accountable in the present, not the future. We have plenty of free will, and plenty of variation in our “hard wiring” as well. You forget that this “hard wiring”, is not absolute but hard wired predispositions. If it were hard and fast rules we would not have needed, and thus would not have evolved, a brain. We also would not have been a very successful species. What keeps it in check is the society. We have free will to choose, but in agregate, across society and across situations, we most often choose to go with our innate moral compass.
Jens, your understanding of the basic message of Christianity is flawed.
You didn’t read what I wrote. Please read it again.
Sin is redeemed by belief, if you confess your sins you will be absolved.
I said you can only be absolved through confession if you believe. Your rant was misplaced and ignorant of what I wrote. If you want to get all technical about the difference between confession and repentance you may, however you know exactly what I am talking about. I am most certianly not ignorant of Christian theology, however, I did not feel I needed to write a thesis on your religion in the prior post to get my point across.
You misunderstand that the conscience is not the sole source for morality.
I think this begs the question of how broad a definition of conscience you have. Also, as I said before, society has a large impact on our morality, it keeps us in check. So, no, I don’t think that the conscience is the sole basis for morality, you assumed that, it is an interplay with outside social forces.
The innate law of God helps convert the soul to follow God’s external revelation given to be put in the heart
Why would a God go to all the trouble, may I ask? If he created us there is no reason not to put belief into us in its entirety. Also, having tried rather hard to find this spark early in life I think, by your beliefs anyway, I must have been born defective. Yet God is infallible so he obviously planned that. So, why are you so bent out of shape over my and others lack of belief in your god? By your standards it was God who made me the way I am. Maybe I was born to be your test not the other way around?
(yes, I do understand the tortuous theology that supposedly answers this question. I simply don’t buy it)
LikeLike
It appears that you missed the following sentences from “Atheism excludes God with no excluding evidence.” The rest is “At least, the true skeptic is honest enough not to take a side. The ‘Atheist’ arrogantly ignores the evidences for God’s existence and the Christ.” See you continue to ignore the evidences as a delusional man would believe that there no other continents than the Americas ignoring satellite photos claiming that there is no evidence to prove the null. You have the words of God and you scoff. Aren’t you familiar with the hundreds of fulfilled predictive prophecies? I know that you’re familiar with the scientific foreknowledge from revelation. Do you not know that you can test these empirically for yourself with archeology? While God’s existence is up to the Christian to prove and has been proved, the atheist must disprove the Bible. You go on and arrogantly present yourself as a higher intelligence slapping the title of “fact of science” on imaginative conjectures that evolving matter creates order, and then continue claiming that everyone else’s faith is a blind faith like all other myths. There is no null for God’s existence when there is evidence unlike about the null before the ylem.
I don’t really care about your contentions with Pascal’s wager. You can go write a post on it.
Now you recognize the conscience and conject that it evolved. At least, we now agree that there is a conscience, but to you it is another accidental encoding “…based on instincts encoded in our brains by evolution” as your source says or as you say “these moral codes are hardwired into people from birth”. Have you observed evolution hardwiring codes? Where are there ever codes without the intellect of writers and where is there design without the intellect of a designer? Have you or anyone ever observed a code generated apart from intelligence? Have you ever seen of code generated by evolution? How can I test such things and see them for myself? There’s another null that you must bare the burden of proof. From your own source, Marc Hauser wrote the book, “How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong”. So, is there or is there not design in nature? What else have you observed nature designing? There’s the null.
Back to the conscience, do you need a Harvard psychologist to tell you that you have or had a conscience? The Scriptures have said this all along, “for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves; in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them;” (Romans 2:14-15). As you stated, “This shows that despite religion, age, education and many other factors people answer moral quandries in the exact same way with very little variation.” That is another assertion and really does not make much sense. Is this despite religion or is this religion since God made the conscience? Your evidence from your source proves that there is a moral code, and does not prove where it came from. Your source of non-believers conjectures that it must be the result of the evolution of society and its need to survive. You say, “Biological morality is not simply a standard which one chooses to follow”. Oh, the sovereignty the god of atheism! Humankind has little if any free will. Who is to hold anyone accountable for their actions? Does not the atheist make the same argument to the theist?
Jens, your understanding of the basic message of Christianity is flawed. Sin is not redeemed! Christians are redeemed by God. Second, confessing your wrongs does not absolve anyone. Do not evil people give prideful confessions of their sins? What court would absolve crimes solely because of a confession? In the Christian faith, confession is only for the believer, who confesses to God and who repents, then their punishment has already come since being previously laid upon Christ. No one is saved by faith alone or faith with the confession of both faith and sins. Evil people do this too. They can believe and confess. You’d be better off sticking to the words of Christ rather than the creeds and teachings of Christian denominations.
The Bible was written to be innate with the conscience. “I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people” (Jeremiah 31:33). You misunderstand that the conscience is not the sole source for morality. Do not atheists believe that the conscience evolved externally from external rules from a society for survival upon the list of time? See, Christians follow their conscience and do not lean on their own understanding, but look to God’s revelation knowing by their conscience that morality is not complete within the conscience alone. The innate law of God helps convert the soul to follow God’s external revelation given to be put in the heart.
LikeLike
“Atheism excludes God with no excluding evidence.”
This is fallacious. The burden of proof is on those who offer explanation to provide proof, not the other way around. To an atheist the “proof” a Christian provides is no stronger than the “proof” a Hindu provides, it does not meet the threshold of being testable. (Could this be why no Discovery Institute fellows publish lab results, because they have no testable hypotheses?) You don’t don’t disprove a hypothesis, you disprove the null.
“…and promised spiritual joys as an earnest [promise] of eternal bliss…and a glorious hope of immortal bliss, were its reward in hand…They promise to him that disbelieveth the Founder of the Christian religion…to this man they promise eternal sleep, and everlasting death.”
This is the wager Pascal was talking about. It is implied in this instance based on the comparison between the two, false as it may be. Given the hope of eternal reward, and no competing reward when death as finality, one would be forced to wager on the side of religion. Unfortunately you must pick the “correct” religion to win the wager, thus invalidating the argument since the “correctness” of religion is untestable without death.
As for athiests not having a moral structure to point to, I think you might want to read up on the research into an evolutionary basis for innate morality. There are some very compelling laboratory results, in humans and animals, which combine to make a compelling argument for biological and social evolution of a common moral structure in humans.
http://tinyurl.com/37wxhy
Take a look particularly at the heading, “What is the evidence that we draw upon unconscious principles when making moral decisions?”. This shows that despite religion, age, education and many other factors people answer moral quandries in the exact same way with very little variation. If religion and age do not effect our moral decisionmaking than how can you point to a religious moral code as the basis for morality?
In Christianity the basic message is: Sin is bad, but everyone sins in their life; Sin is redeemed by belief, if you confess your sins you will be absolved.
How is this so different from the Evolutionary view: Treating people in ways that hurt them or their feelings is bad (it hurts your ability to succeed within a group when you do it), but everyone treats others badly sometimes when our wants get control of our social graces; Society looks down upon those who treat others badly, if you come clean with society you will most likely be forgiven and allowed another chance (Until you have exhausted the patience fo the group, after which you may be punished or cast out).
The only difference is that there is epirical evidence that these moral codes are hardwired into people from birth. Religious moral codes are not innate (you have to learn them from the Bible or going to church), and have no testable evidence to disprove the null hypothesis formed by previous empirical testing. This leads us to the conclusion that religious morality could easily be derivative of our innate moral code. Evidence to disprove this null hypothesis has not been presented that I am aware of.
You state that, “The “Atheist” must then have a moral standard including honesty.” Ironically the evidence for innate morality holds honesty to an even higher standard than you require. Biological morality is not simply a standard which one chooses to follow, it is a biologial imperative for survival of your genes (and indeed personal survival in some circumstance).
Would you not agree that an innate imperative would hold much more sway over human decision making than an external list of rules?
LikeLike
This is not really a wager. The evidence is there. In the quote above, the great evidence is that faith in Christ undeniably offers as opposed to all others, “…no lure to the ambitious; no reward to the avaricious [from greed, coveting]. It offered no alliance with the lusts of the flesh, the lusts of the eyes, nor the pride of life. It disdained such auxiliaries…By the excellency of its doctrine, the purity of its morals, the rationality of its arguments, the demonstration of the Holy Spirit, and the good example of its subjects, it triumphed on the ruins of Judaism and idolatry.” Can the foundation that supports “atheism” teach against greed and coveting?
Note “rationality of its arguments”. “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Heb. 11:1). The life of believer is based on logic and evidence whether small or complex.
“Atheism”, as an asserted and rarely defended position of non-believing skeptics, does not provide “the boon of seeing the world free of artiface and take each step in ones life based upon logic and belief in the evidence provided. It is a belief in evidential proof.” Though an “atheist” may say that they give all their heart and effort to “seeing the world free of artifice”, the “atheist” also claims to also not see anything else outside of repeatable observable laws of nature. Can the “atheist” prove a moral standard? What evidence is it based upon? The Atheist who avoids a moral standard avoids honesty as a part of any standard, and no one can trust them. The “Atheist” must then have a moral standard including honesty. Let them tell us what it is, so that we can all live an honest life,but then that would be hypocrisy. There’s no honesty when an “atheist” asserts their belief. Atheism excludes God with no excluding evidence. At least, the true skeptic is honest enough not to take a side. The “Atheist” arrogantly ignores the evidences for God’s existence and the Christ.
LikeLike
It is interesting and an excellent point. It is basically a dressed up Pascal’s Wager however.
“What really is the alternative to Christ? What are the great things that one looks unto apart from Christ?”
One could easily say that the alternative is Vishnu, Thor or any other theological argument couldn’t you, assuming that you don’t believe the teachings of the bible all theologies teach these same rewards in one form or another. All of these religions specify, “what boon [blessing], what honor, what reward have our opponents to offer for its renunciation?”.
In this line an atheist (quite apart from nihilism, which is what he is actually deriding in the last paragraph) would simply state that Atheism provides the boon of seeing the world free of artiface and take each step in ones life based upon logic and belief in the evidence provided. It is a belief in evidential proof. A reward after death is not really needed in this worldview, if death is final there is no reason to attempt to reach some milestone beyond it. Therefore, it is much better to be sure that the life you live is lived to its best both for ones self and for those around you.
I would be interested to see what the rebuttal to this passage was. Would you dare post it?
LikeLike