True Horizon

Last month Jesse Kilgore (pictured at right) walked into the woods near his New York home and killed himself. The 22-year old was attending college after a stint in the military and, according to his father, was prompted to read Richard Dawkins‘, The God Delusion by one of his professors. I have addressed Dawkins’ book here before (and intend to do so again) but I bring this sad story up for three reasons directly related to the purpose of TrueHorizon and my invovlvement in the apologetics.

First, Jesse’s dad has reportedly blamed his son’s death on Dawkins, his book, and the college professor who challenged Jesse to read it. While I could never hope to understand the shock and trauma with which Jesse’s dad is dealing, it seems unfair to blame the author of a book for any actions taken by someone who reads his work. So, while I can’t blame Richard Dawkins for this tragedy, the story brings a relevant reality to light. College professors have an inordinate amount of influence over our children after they leave our homes. These people weild authority based on their position and their opinions carry the weight of academia behind every pronouncement they make. In this case, some reports claim that the professor in question regularly taunted Jesse or anyone else who shared his religious views. His challenge to Jesse to read The God Delusion was just a part of his personal atheistic evangelizing program.

While the fact that a professor can act like this is disgusting, the truth is that this kind of scene is far too common. Our kids need to be prepared to deal with it. It is directly attributable to The 75% Problem that CrossExamined.org is attempting to address.

Second, the fact that Jesse Kilgore was taken aback and his faith was shattered by Dawkins’ book is sad — but it was also completely avoidable. Listen to his relative’s description of the impact the book had on Jesse:

“He mentioned the book he had been reading ‘The God Delusion’ by Richard Dawkins and how it along with the science classes he had take[n] had eroded his faith. Jesse was always great about defending his beliefs, but somehow, the professors and the book had presented him information that he found to be irrefutable. He had not talked … about it because he was afraid of how you might react. … and that he knew most of your defenses of Christianity because he himself used them often. Maybe he had used them against his professors and had the ideas shot down.

Listen, the arguments Dawkins uses in The God Delusion are weak and, in some cases, completely juvenile. As a scientist Dawkins speaks with an air of superiority based on his credentials but even a cursory analysis of his scientific claims renders them impotent. Ironically however, Dawkins book contains very little science! Instead it is loaded with presuppositions posing as arguments and philosophical assertions that disintegrate under scrutiny. Even if we grant that Dawkins is a brilliant scientist, his lack of credentials as a philosopher are blatantly obvious in the disjointed and unconvincing “arguments” he thinks he makes. It saddens me deeply that no one was able to point these deficiencies out to Jesse Kilgore.

Finally, this story exposes the complete emptiness of naturalism. Jesse’s father was of the opinion that his son was well-grounded in Christian thought, but one of Jesse’s relatives paints a different picture:

“He was pretty much an atheist, with no belief in the existence of God (in any form) or an afterlife or even in the concept of right or wrong,” the relative wrote. “I remember him telling me that he thought that murder wasn’t wrong per se, but he would never do it because of the social consequences - that was all there was - just social consequences.”

Here we see where atheism leads. Though atheists can be good, moral people, they have no way to explain the foundation of that goodness or morality. Whether they realize it or not, to act morally is to borrow from the theism they claim to reject. Sadly, not all of them are content with that fact and eventually come to realize that their worldview is vacuous in its ability to explain things like right and wrong, good and evil, pointless and meaningful. In a materialistic world where atoms banging into one another is the full explanation of reality, there cannot be things such as these. At some point the atheist either chooses to live with this dichotomy and ignore it, or is faced with the reality that his worldview renders his life meangingless.

Sadly, the consequences of the second choice can be eternally significant.

In the “Please Tell Me This Isn’t True” department, this Wall Street Journal story is downright scary and sad. The Christian match-maker, eHarmony.com has lost a lawsuit brought by a homosexual activist meant to force the service to cater to homosexuals …

A settlement Wednesday between eHarmony Inc. and the New Jersey attorney general requires the online heterosexual dating service to also cater to homosexuals, raising questions about whether other services that target a niche clientele could be forced to expand their business models.

The settlement stemmed from a complaint, filed with the New Jersey attorney general’s office by a gay match seeker in 2005, that eHarmony had violated his rights under the state’s discrimination law by not offering a same-sex dating service. In 2007, the attorney general found probable cause that eHarmony had violated the state’s Law Against Discrimination.

As part of the agreement, the Pasadena, Calif.-based company will develop and market Compatible Partners, a Web dating service for same-sex couples, and will allow the site’s first 10,000 users to register free. EHarmony will also pay $50,000 to the attorney general’s office and $5,000 to the man who first brought the case.

That was on Wednesday in New Jersey. On Thursday, in California, a second judge ruled that a class action lawsuit could proceed for the very same reason. In reaction to these announcements, Chemistry.com (another homosexual matching service) offered the following statement:

Unfortunately, those searching for non-judgmental love still won’t be able to visit eHarmony to find it, and will instead be ushered off to an entirely separate site … “It’s a shame that Dr. Neil Clark Warren’s (founder of eHarmony.com) sudden acceptance came at the forced hand of the legal system,” said Thomas Enraght-Moony, CEO. “Since its inception, Chemistry.com has lived by the mantra of ‘Come as You Are,’ an open-minded philosophy that permeates the brand and encourages anyone and everyone to find that indescribable feeling of falling in love.”

First, the scary part … Why would Chemistry.com find it “unfortunate” that e-Harmony had to be forced to set up “an entirely separate site”? Because they’ll have new competition? Maybe, but I don’t think so. These homosexual activists are not motivated by competition or equality. Don’t be fooled.

These folks are motivated by the forced imposition of their view on you and me. They will not stop until you and I have publicly accepted their moral choices as being legitimate.

As Michelle Maulkin points out:

Don’t like what eHarmony sells? Go somewhere else. There are thousands upon thousands of dating sites on the Internet that cater to gays, lesbians, Jews, Muslims, Trekkies, runners, you name it. No matter. In the name of tolerance, McKinley refused to tolerate eHarmony’s right to operate a lawful business that didn’t give him what he wanted.

Make no mistake, these folks don’t care about equal rights anymore. Their aim is to bring the full force of the law and government down on your head until you capitulate. That’s what is scary.

What’s sad is that eHarmony capitulated.

I understand that it was a business decision for eHarmony to cave to this homosexual shakedown. It was going to cost them a lot of money to continue to fight this out in court. And, quite frankly, winning in court is a dubious prospect these days where these kinds of issues are concerned. But, in my opinion, the stakes involved warranted a sacrificial fight. It is not just that eHarmony agreed to setup a separate website and payout money. There is more, much more, to the settlement:

— eHarmony, Inc. will post photos of same-sex couples in the “Diversity” section of its website as successful relationships are created using the company’s same-sex matching service. In addition, eHarmony, Inc. will include photos of same-sex couples, as well as individual same-sex users, in advertising materials used to promote its same-sex matching services;

– eHarmony, Inc. will revise anti-discrimination statements placed on company websites, in company handbooks and other company publications to make plain that it does not discriminate on the basis of “sexual orientation”;

– the company has committed to advertising and public relations/ marketing dedicated to its same-sex matching service, and will retain a media consultant experienced in promoting the “fair, accurate and inclusive” representation of gay and lesbian people in the media to determine the most effective way of reaching the gay and lesbian communities.

In other words, their agreement amounts to condoning wholesale acceptance of the homosexual agenda. Neil Clark Warren is an outspoken Evangelical Christian whose website targets the Christian community. For that reason alone eHarmony should have kept up the fight. And make no mistake, it is a fight.

This is not to condone mistreatment of homosexuals. Far from it. We are commanded to demonstrate love and kindness toward all human beings, regardless of their moral choices. Indeed we are called to be more forgiving, and less judgmental, of those who are not believers. But that doesn’t mean we cannot judge what is right and wrong.

As I said, the homosexual activists mentioned here are not out for equal treatment.  As Michelle Maulkin points out above, they already have that. They can list themselves on any homosexual-friendly internet matchmaker site they wish. But that’s not good enough for them. They want to force all such organizations — most especially those that overtly represent the Christian faith — to bow to their demands. This is no different than in California, where homosexuals can enter into “domestic partnerships” and gain all the rights of married couples. That isn’t good enough. They tried to force the issue and demand that the the institution of marriage, which has existed for thousands of years in every culture around the world, be completely redefined to include same-sex couples. When the voters approved Proposition 8, thereby upholding society’s definition of marriage and denying them that label, the homosexuals rioted in the streets.

Obviously, this is not the final battle that will be fought in this component of the culture war. But it is a bad precedent to set. This is not about the Bible’s view on homosexuality. That is not debatable (though many try to debate it). This is about what has made societies viable and healthy for thousands of years of human history. This is about overturning what makes societies work by redefining the building block of those societies — the nuclear family. Make no mistake, it is most definitely not about equal rights. It is about the imposition of special recognition for those who deny the way the world is meant to work.

This week a small skirmish in a larger battle was lost. We need to stay awake and listen for the next attack. The enemies of the natural order are chipping away at the foundation of what it means to be human — and we are lending them the chisel.

To follow up on my last post, a friend sent me a link to a great synopsis of the issues surrounding the oral tradition I mentioned. It is actually one in a series of 15 articles regarding the “Historical Reliability of the Gospels.” If you have any interest in these things, or if you have been asked about them and couldn’t find an answer, I would suggest this as a great starting point. From here you can sift through the other related articles

Enjoy …

The Gospel Traditions: Melt In Your Mouth?

I try to highlight new finds that support the claims of the Bible whenever I run across them. [By the way, many thanks to those of you who have forwarded me articles etc. that serve that purpose. I greatly appreciate it] But honestly, especially when you consider scientific evidence that is consistent with the Biblical worldview, it is almost impossible to keep up with them.

The best place to keep informed of the scientific data is at Reasons To Believe’s website. Hugh Ross, Fuz Rana, Jeff Zweerink, Dave Rogstad, and Ken Samples (the RTB Scholar team), or one of their invited guests, update this site every day with new scientific evidence. Yes, that’s right, I said every day. They call this feature Today’s New Reason To Believe (TNRTB) and, quite frankly, I am appalled that I haven’t ever mentioned it on here before. If you’ve got a lot of time on your hands, they have an archive of past articles that you can check out or search for topics that may specifically interest you. You can link to the archive HERE.

That said, I wanted to offer a couple of other stories that are not scientifically related. The first concerns an archaeological find in south Jerusalem.

An Israeli archaeologist has discovered what he believes is the oldest known Hebrew inscription on a 3,000-year-old pottery shard — a find that suggests Biblical accounts of the ancient Israelite kingdom of David could have been based on written texts … He said the relic is strong evidence that the ancient Israelites were literate and could chronicle events centuries before the Bible was written. This could suggest that some of the Bible’s accounts were based on written records as well as oral traditions — adding credence to arguments that the Biblical account of history is more than myth.

Another take on this same story is HERE.

archaeologists digging in Israel at the site where David is believed to have slain Goliath have unearthed evidence that may give credence to the biblical story.

This one is interesting because many maintain that the Biblical history we have now is nothing more than fairy tales that were passed down via the “telephone game” and are therefore unreliable. Not so. (Read on …)

Someone once said that “what you are speaks so loudly I can’t hear what you say.” I have always heard that line issued in the pejorative about someone who talks a good game but is possessed of a failed character. It isn’t often that we run into someone whose character works the other way. Sam Dillard is just such a person. He was not a man of many words. He didn’t try to impress anyone with his knowledge or status. But his character spoke volumes. He just tried to walk the walk. And he was awfully good at walking.

In 1977 Sam Dillard walked out of Evangel University and onto the playing fields of Cincinnati Christian High School where he, without any previous soccer experience, became the soccer coach. Thirty-one years later, Sam won yet another award for his coaching prowess in the the Miami Valley Conference. “True to form, he accepts that award in front of all these league peers of his, and instead of talking about himself or his season, the only thing he talked about was God,” [CCS Superintendent] Dan Bragg said. “He was all about administering and discipling kids. Soccer was just something he did. He wanted to make sure kids grew up with character and discipline and became better people for being part of his program.”

That is an understatement.

Less than a week later, a series of brain aneurysms took Sam Dillard home …

You could often see Sam Dillard’s lips moving when he did the “Sammy Shuffle” around the soccer field. But Sam wasn’t talking to himself. He was praying.

You could often see Sam Dillard speechless after a big game — speechless because he couldn’t make himself talk through the flood of emotion he was experiencing. Sam wasn’t sad for having lost, and he wasn’t elated for having won, he was speechless for being so honored as to serve Christ through the medium of sports — for making young men good athletes but, more importantly, good men.

You could often hear Sam Dillard giving motivational speeches to his teams. But he wasn’t motivating them toward athletic honors or achievement — he was motivating them to put Christ at the center of everything they did. If they did that, he told them, they would win the game of life. Sports was just an add-on.

You can read about those he touched here but let me summarize: Three of my sons played soccer for this man and none of them will ever forget the impact he made on their lives. They don’t call me “sir,” but they did call Sam that, and that is just fine with me. I can’t think of anyone else for whom I would be more honored to yield that respect. Sam Dillard inspired young men to do more than they ever imagined, to impact their world in all the ways that really matter, and to go out and turn that world upside down. If anyone could motivate them to do that, it was Sam.

This year, the Varsity Soccer team had practice shirts made up that said, “Talk is cheap.” It’s not an original saying of course, but the story behind having that saying put on their shirts came from Sam’s interpretation of Proverbs 14:23:

All hard work brings a profit, but mere talk leads only to poverty.

Sam worked his teams hard for only one reason: He wanted them to earn the respect and riches of a life that reflects the character of Christ. There is only one right way to do that and it doesn’t come by just talking about it. It comes through a life well lived — a life like Sam Dillard’s.

Rest in Peace, Sir.

“I think I feel more sorry for the dogs”

“I can’t vote for someone who hunts.”

These are two quotes I’ve heard recently that I simply cannot get out of my head. When we say that we are engaged in a battle of ideas, I can’t imagine anything that could demonstrate how the average person thinks than these. I will explain them below but please hear me before I do. One of these quotes comes as a response to an issue that is near and dear to my heart and that I have commented on recently. The other has a political element to it and comes from someone with whom I completely disagree politically. But please understand that I couldn’t care less about my charitable priorities with the first, or my political differences with the second.

All I want to point out is the thinking behind the quotes … what brought these folks to say the words they said. Maybe I’m warped, or maybe I’m the one who doesn’t understand the way things are, but I have to say that I cannot comprehend how someone’s mind could utter thoughts like these. Here goes …

“I think I feel more sorry for the dogs …”

Two of my most recent posts revolved around our recent family trip to Monterrey, Mexico with Back-2-Back Ministries (here and here). On our last work day down there, we went to a place the Back-2-Back staff call Rio 3. Rio 3 is a neighborhood (for lack of a better word) situated near a mostly dry river bed. In reality it amounts to a refugee camp inhabited by those the government cannot support and wants out of the city. These people are allowed to “squat” in this area on land that was previously used as a landfill. The place is a garbage dump … and it smells like one. Mangy, diseased dogs with their ribs plainly in sight roamed slowly around the streets. The “homes” of these poor people are made mostly of the trash and scraps of things they can cobble together into some form of shelter. There are plywood, cardboard and corrugated steel shacks. They have bricks and cinder blocks (and in one case we saw, a toilet) sitting on the roof — if they have a roof — to hold it down. There is no way to sufficiently describe the filth and poverty of this place.

The church we worked in there was like a light to moths for the people who lived in Rio 3. Children and their mothers (notably, not a single man showed up) came running for a Sunday afternoon celebration. They sang, ate and received school supplies that most of us would never give a second thought — and thanked us as if we had given them bars of gold. They were so thankful, and seemingly so content, living in a place that was so disgusting, it was hard to believe what we were seeing. So, without boring you with all the details, the entire scene brought many of us to tears.

On the way home a few of us floated the idea of organizing some sort of fundraising project to help provide service equipment that would go to help serve these kids and the others from the orphanages Back-2-Back supports. Then, a week or so ago, my wife approached a professional who we thought might be able to assist us with that project (I am purposefully being vague about the details so as not to identify the person or the “service” I am referring to here). When Mary told the story of these kids, the first quote above was the response she got: “I think I feel more sorry for the dogs …”

“I can’t vote for someone who hunts.”

This one I owe to a recent radio podcast with Greg Koukl of Stand To Reason (you can go here to listen for yourself — the relevant discussion is near the middle of the first hour of the 10/27/2008 show). In summary, Greg relates the story of a woman who overheard the conversation he and his wife were having about the Presidential election and Barack Obama’s position on the abortion issue — that he was the only Illinois Senator who voted against a measure that would have protected the life of a baby who survived an abortion attempt. President-elect Obama thought the baby deserved no such protection. A woman heard this and said that she was voting for Obama:

Greg: “Really? What accomplishments of Senator Obama do you think qualify him to be the most powerful man in the world?”

Woman: “Well, I never thought of it that way.”

Greg: “Are you pro-life?” (he asked this because this was the topic she had overheard that drew her into the conversation)

Woman: (pause) … “Yes.”

Greg: “Do you realize what his record is on the issue?”

Woman: “I can’t vote for someone who hunts.”

Now, forget the politics, the qualification issue and the candidate involved. It doesn’t matter who it is. Just look at the thinking methodology. Who is the woman referring to when she utters the quote in question?

Since she has claimed to be voting for Obama, she must be referring to his opposition. John McCain may or may not hunt, I have no idea. It wouldn’t surprise me if he did. But who is notable for her hunting proclivities? Sarah Palin, of course — the Republican Vice Presidential candidate. The upshot is that this supposed pro-lifer is voting for a presidential candidate who is so extremely pro-abortion he defends and supports literal infanticide. Yet she is voting for him because the vice presidential candidate of the other party likes to hunt wild animals.

I really don’t know how to approach those who think like these people. How do you use rational arguments to engage in a discussion of any issue with people whose minds are rigged this way? And make no mistake, there are millions of them.The enormity of the problem discourages me sometimes.

Please don’t miss my point. I am not so arrogant as to think that anyone who disagrees with me is just plain moronic. That is not the point at all. What is so discouraging to me is the way people think about what I consider some of the most basic and important issues of our, or any, time: the dignity and value of human life. Why is it worth protecting? Why should we value it at all? We can never agree on the answers to such questions if we don’t even know how to go about considering them.

I want to offer an insight that my friend Jim Betscher shared with us during our recent trip to Monterrey, Mexico. Jim is an incredible guy. After visiting the Back-2-Back Ministry several times with his daughter, he was so moved by the enormity of the mission there, and so enamored with the staff and kids there, that he sold his house and moved to Monterrey to work full time. Jim has been there for over 2 years now and cannot stop himself from telling anyone who will listen how much he loves what he does.

During one of our conversations, Jim made what I thought was a stunningly astute observation about how differently the Mexican and American churches approach the plight of the poor.

First, the missionary workers in Mexico have observed that it is like pulling teeth to solicit aid from the local churches in Monterrey. The church there (in general) seems blissfully unaware of this. Either that or they are unwilling to get involved with the poor that are so obviously living among them. It is not like they are hard to see. They are everywhere. And maybe that is the problem. There are so many poor, living in such atrocious conditions, that the enormity of the problem may seem overwhelming. It is easier to just pretend it doesn’t exist.

At the same time, those in the American church spend incredible resources to not only give financially to the causes of the poor in Mexico, but to travel there and get personally involved in the work themselves. Jim is amazed by the contrast. The Mexican church is unconcerned or uninvolved (as is the Mexican government, but that’s another story), while the American church pours countless resources into the effort.

But, if you are an American, don’t pat yourself on the back too quickly.

Jim’s second observation, after having witnessed what goes on with these orphan kids for several years now, is his amazement at how the Mexican believers are completely reliant on God for everything they have and do. These are people who sometimes wake up to an empty cupboard or go to bed without any possessions but the clothes on their backs. Yet they never seem to complain. They are completely convinced that “God will provide,” and He does — repeatedly. Sometimes the provision simply comes through the compassionate service of those who support Back-2-Back, but other times the provision is nothing less than miraculous. Jim and others can tell stories that will give you chills. And they can tell you those stories over and over again.

Meanwhile, in the American church, relying on God seems to be a novel, if not disappearing idea. We are so self-sufficient, so bountifully showered with material possessions, that we forget from whom those blessings flow. And I don’t mean to speak too generally because I most assuredly count myself among those who reflect this attitude. We regularly throw away food and other essential items that anyone in the Mexican communities we visited would count as blessed abundance.

So while it is commendable that we Americans are known to be so generous an example for helping others around the world, we could also use some work in remembering how blessed we really are to able to do so.

Just something for all of us to consider …

And while you’re at it, I would encourage anyone who reads this to consider helping Jim and the Back-2-Back Ministry do what they do so well. You can do so HERE!

For someone who spends an awful lot (too much?) of my time thinking, reading, writing and teaching about worldview issues, I certainly was surprised and shocked when confronted with the tangible reality that my own worldview has been woefully inadequate and incomplete. My wife and three of our kids just returned from a five day trip to Monterrey, Mexico with Back 2 Back Ministries and I am still left a little speechless by it all. (You can read the story of this ministry in Beth Guckenberger’s new book: “Reckless Faith”)

We met with, played with, served, and did construction at three different locations with some of the most destitute people on Earth. These are orphan kids whose entire day consists of wondering where their next meal will come from; kids who have been wounded emotionally and physically in some of the worst ways imaginable. Yet they want nothing more than a piggyback ride, or a hug from people they have never laid eyes on before. They want to sing worship songs and play soccer or baseball with my boys. They simply want to know that someone cares that they exist.

We watched as their eyes lit up because they were given a backpack with a notebook and some pencils in it so that they wouldn’t be the only kid in school without one. We watched as a 6 year-old folded his school clothes and put them in a bin labeled with his size, so that the other kids his size could share them. We watched as little Brian spent the afternoon chasing a chicken around his mostly dirt yard, catching and petting its squirming body, then letting it go so the whole game could begin again — each chase ending with the same exclamation, “Yo tengo, Yo tengo!” (”I have it, I have it”). We watched, when it was time to leave, as little Brian repeated another phrase — “Por qué te vas?” (”Why are you leaving?”)

I could go on and on but frankly, my descriptions cannot begin to convey the intensity of the experiences we had over the last 4 days. The pain and misery of these kids is overwhelming. But still they smile. Most actually seem content with their physical situation. The only thing these orphans seem to lack is hope. They have been devastated by the fact that they don’t have a family to love them and help heal their emotional wounds. As a result, three teens attempted suicide the week before we got there.

And that is the real mission of Back-2-Back — offering hope to replace the hoplessness you cannot see. Yes, they smile and laugh when you show them love, but each little instance of happiness is a frighteningly small deposit in a bankrupt psyche that has been created within them as a result of being abandoned.

On a wall in the meeting room where our days began and ended was a large mural titled, “Esperanza del Mañana” — “Hope for Tomorrow.” Though I have no delusions about the tiny impact our little family trip may have had on them, I can only pray that it is part of a much larger deposit into those accounts that many more will give. I would encourage anyone who reads this to consider being one more depositor.

I have often heard people say that a mission trip like this “changed their lives” and, to be honest, I have wondered about the sincerity with which I have heard it said by people who really seem no different on the outside. I have been cynical about the claims of those who have gone to serve, and ignorant about the severity of the suffering that goes on with those who need to be served.

Shame on me.

As our plane left the runway in Monterrey yesterday morning, I gazed out the window through a steady rain. I realized that the kids I had been singing with the afternoon before, then lay in a muddy shanty trying to sleep and I was brought to tears by the thought. I don’t know that anyone will be stunned at the sudden, radical transformation they will see in me. But I can tell you this: My four days in Monterrey will never allow me to look at our world the same way again.

If my life has been changed, it is only because I have been given a tangible realization of how blessed I am and how negligent I have been about the plight of those who suffer daily in this world.

If my life has been changed, it is because I can no longer claim ignorance about that fact. I no longer have an excuse. I am obligated to do something, through my little sphere of influence, to offer hope for tomorrow to those who have no idea that such a thing even exists.

In the final installment on this topic I want to quickly address the logical end to which the relativistic morality I’ve been discussing leads.

Most who claim such a view are seriously confused in their ability to follow these arguments through and realize their faults. They are either parroting someone they’ve heard or read, or they have never really tried to consider their view in depth.

Another common tendency of people who think like this to get very angry and offended if they believe you are saying they can’t be moral. I don’t blame them for getting upset if they think we are saying they “can’t be moral.” I actually believe that atheists can be just as moral as any theist could ever be — maybe more so, I don’t know. The problem is that they cannot defend the “oughtness” of their morality based on their own view. Their view doesn’t allow for such a thing. So when they do claim to know objective truth or morality, they are actually stealing from the theistic worldview they claim to reject!

So, to reiterate from the first post, I am not saying they can’t be moral. I am saying they can’t ground their morality. And that leads to some pretty scary stuff. Some of these folks are not confused. These are the ones that go beyond frustrating to scary and sad. Because they do realize that calling things wrong or immoral under their worldview is incoherent, they will go to great lengths to refuse to do so. What happens when you push them to that end is pretty extreme.

In this case I contended that that we don’t need a written standard to know certain things are wrong — things like murder, slavery or torturing babies for fun. The truth is that only a sociopath would require an explanation for the immorality of these actions — or someone who is just deliberately trying to be belligerent. Here’s what I got back:

SLAVERY: How have you determined slavery wrong? I’ll keep repeating myself. WRONG FOR WHO!? In what way wrong? To what degree wrong? WHY WRONG!?

BABIES: Where does the bible say that torturing babies is wrong? Why is it wrong?

MURDER: What is murder? Is capital punishment murder? Why not? It is premeditated ‘retribution’. Is that murder? Is all killing murder? Clearly you would say No. Is all murder wrong? Well, you’re going to have to describe every instance. If a suicide bomber is shot by a sniper saving the lives of 100s, is the sniper a murderer? What if I accidentally kill someone? What if I aimed to shoot a person with a gun, missed and the bullet went into barn, caused the animals to stampede, trample and kill the person I was trying to shoot in the first place? Is that murder? It was an accident and completely not my intention … What makes it malicious? What is innocent human life? I thought we’re all guilty of sin. None of us are innocent, so what are you talking about?

There you have it. It is my contention, in saying that objective truth and morality are really “out there” as part of the fabric of the universe, that you don’t need a Bible or me to explain to you why these things are wrong or true. Notice that the writer keeps insisting that I am basing these things on the Bible. I am not. I am saying that even those who have never even seen, let alone read, the Bible would know that these things are wrong. They are inescapable.

Yet he insists that I must defend the idea that slavery, torturing babies for fun and murder are wrong. Anyone who really believed that such a thing requires explanation would be a sociopath — someone who has no moral conscience — someone who really did not know right from wrong.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think the commenter is really a sociopath. I think he knows full well that to admit these things are objectively wrong is to undermine his entire view of the world. None of us would go down easy on such a challenge. I only hope he considers the consequences of holding to it.

And I think he does. Why? Because this was his final response:

So I’m a sociopath for asking you to explain yourself? Very nice Bob. As they say, put up, or shut up. Put up some evidence as to absolute objective morality standards.

This response tells me that his indignant response to the suggestion that he is a sociopath is an admission that there are objective standards of right and wrong he thinks I have violated. He thinks I’m wrong to call him such a thing and he wants evidence to support my claim.

Never mind that I have just spent several days offering evidence. The fact that he claims to want to base his view on actual evidence is encouraging. The fact that he still recognizes objective reality (even if he claims not to) is too.

One can only hope.

Last time I used the analogy in the title (above) to try to illustrate what it like talking to atheists about morality. I said it is frustrating to no end. So now I’m going to prove it. If you feel the need to pull your own hair out, go for it. I do it all the time.

:-)

Below are some comments (names removed) by atheists I have conversed with online at different times and places. I will give their unedited comments so you can see for yourself how these folks think and, most importantly, the logical conclusions to which their worldview takes them.

we are getting to the reality of ethics/morals… RELATIVITY. Something that is bad or ‘evil’ for one being, can be good for another. “Who determines what is evil?” Beings themselves … My point is that we are talking about choice. Evil doesn’t exist in and of itself. It is not some cloud-like gas floating out in the universe. Evil is determined by the individual being. What hurts mankind must be ‘evil,’ in terms of mankind …

First, “Relativity” is a physics term referring to Einstein’s General or Special theories. “Relativism” is quite a different thing. I don’t say this to be condescending but many people believe these are synonymous and that we are therefore free to say “everything’s relative!” Nothing could be further from the truth.The scientific concept of light’s velocity being constant regardless of the frame of reference from which it is measured has no similarity to the philosophical claim made here: That moral questions are only decided by “being’s themselves.” That claim is a relativistic claim and all claims to relativism are self-defeating and incoherent. In saying this we would have no way to differentiate the morality of another person’s actions. We would have no right to judge Hitler’s actions as being “wrong” or, as this commenter claimed prior to this, no framework by which she could label God as a “malevolent monster.” Both God and Hitler just do what they do because, “Something that is bad or ‘evil’ for one being, can be good for another.” The commenter wants to define his own morality and is quite adamant about the fact that is his prerogative to do so …

Naturally, I think you’re wrong. You keep trying to establish “oughtness” as the basis of all things, as though the universe could not operate without it…and yet it does, every single day. “Should” is an opinion; “ought to” is an opinion. The only thing that is objective are the facts; everything else is an opinion. Morality is a personal choice; whatever source we take it from is no more objective than any person or circumstance we apply it to.

I didn’t say morals don’t exist. I said they are relative. I can make any moral judgment I please. There is no absolute moral standard for relative beings. As I said earlier, I have moral/ethical beliefs.

I don’t believe in objective “morality,” so I don’t adhere to the “shoulda woulda coulda” rationale. However, if I were to qualify a set of guidelines by which I prefer to adhere as “morality,” then I would say that I construct those guidelines based on what is most effective towards reaching my personal goals, which primarily consists of the happiness of myself and others.

These are from different folks but carry the same message — one that deserves comment. The view they hold is completely self-defeating in this sense: They claim that morality and truth are relative to the individual or group who chooses to adhere to them. That being the case, their truth and morality would hold no more weight than my truth and morality. Neither of us could claim to be right or wrong under their standard of establishing truth or morality. Yet, in the same breath, they say things like “I think you are wrong.”

Now, there is nothing wrong (no pun intended) with saying that on my view. But on their view it is completely incoherent because on their view no one can claim to know whether anyone’s claim to know the truth is valid. Their statements about these things defy the very claims of their own worldview!

I try to approach this problem by asking a simple question: “Do you think I am wrong to say relativism is false?” If they say I am wrong to say that, they are admitting to an absolute truth claim about the proposition. If they say I am not wrong, they are admitting that relativism is false. Either way, relativism ends up being false.

And this is why it is so frustrating. The reasoning they have to resort to defend themselves is maddeningly circular. You can go on and on like this until you are ready to scream. But scream you cannot. If you get angry, you lose. If you get them angry, you lose. Unfortunately, I have lost far too often in both ways.