Is this a good answer? What do you think?

A twitter conversation I recently had with a christian apologist, Brett Kunkle, has been featured on his ministry's website for their weekly apologetics challenge. We were talking about morality, and whether it was objective or not. Brett was claiming that objectivity of moral values (It's wrong to torture babies for fun, no matter if anyone agrees with it or not) is self-evident. I was objecting to the use of moral intuitions or gut feelings as evidence that there actually are objective moral values in reality. I claim that this connection between what we intuit and what is actually real is not clear cut, at least when it comes to our moral sense.

Part of their challenge format is a video answer given by Brett a few days after the readers have chewed on it a bit. Today Brett released his answer to my objection. What do you think? Did he adequately answer the question that I posed:

"Why would the fact that I intuit something to be true be considered evidence that it really is true?"

Please read my original objection here. The discussion of my challenge (with clarifications) at STRPlace is here. Reading those will make my objection seem clearer, and save me time walking newcomers through the finer points. Thank you for reading, and please feel free to leave your thoughts about this in the comments!

I'm Sorry For Being Homophobic

I used to be a christian. I also used to think being gay was an abomination. There is no coincidence there, it is because of the first thing that the second thing happened. I really took what the bible said about homosexuality to heart, and more or less despised gay people. Moreover, I saw them as enemies, not as human beings that were related to me in the most profound sense.

Christians, can you help me answer this?

This is not a new question, but I have been unable to find a good answer for it. I wonder if you can help me find it. You don't have to answer in your own words if you don't want to, but perhaps you can point me in the right direction.

If Adam and Even did not know good and evil before eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, how could God hold them morally responsible for their evil? 

Imagine Adam and Eve having no concept of right and wrong. Imagine them not even comprehending the idea that disobeying God was "wrong" but obeying him was "right." Do we hold or pets morally responsible for the "wrongs" they commit, even though they don't have a clue that what they do is considered wrong?

God said to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, because they would die if they did so. (Gen 2:17)

The serpent later questions them about what God said would happen if they ate of it, and said that they "will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." (Gen 3:1-5)

They later eat the fruit and their "eyes were opened." (Gen 3:7) They realized they were naked and they felt shame and hid from God.

After all this, God is recorded as saying, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." (Gen 3:22)

From the biblical account, it seems clear to me that before they ate, only God knew good and evil. So Adam and Eve did not know good and evil until they disobeyed God and ate. That means they did not know that to disobey God was morally wrong. How could God justify this permanent, world-changing, eternal punishment for a crime that the perpetrators didn't even know they were committing?

This is not a post that is meant to be sarcastic or mocking in any way. This is a genuine challenge I am seriously curious about. Thank you.

Scary Christian School "Science" Textbook

A friend of mine shared this link, and it is scary! Read what this christian textbook says about how we can know things, and how science works. These poor children are being taught this garbage.

Only Faith in God can Fulfill Man's Deepest Needs.

Many times I have heard people refer to the fact that their faith met their human needs more than an atheistic worldview ever could. But is that reason to believe it?

The idea that atheism "can't answer man's deepest needs" as evidence against it is just silly to me. First of all, I think that man's deepest needs are not impossible to meet if you don't believe in a god. But even if it was, why would that be evidence for or against either side?

Only if you presume that the property of being able to "meet man's deepest needs" is a necessary condition for the truth of a worldview does this make sense to you. But why think that? There could be in fact many emotional, "spiritual," and physical needs that we just cannot ever fully meet. But where is it written that we humans are guaranteed such fulfillment in the first place?

Why do so many people seem to think that the existence of some sort of human desire or yearning means there must be something out there that satisfies that desire?

Believers in God: What is the most personally convincing evidence/argument/reason you have for belief that God exists?

 No judging here, just collecting information. Please reply in the comments. Be nice!

Happy Christopher Hitchens Day

Today is Christopher Hitchens' birthday. He would have been 63. Fans of his are calling today "Christopher Hitchens Day" as a way to remember him.

Belief in God is not Stupid

When talking about religion with someone who believes differently than you, it is very easy to get frustrated because they don't see things the same way. You try and make your point as clearly as you can, as reasonably as you can, but still they just don't “get it.” You may, after a while, begin to formulate reasons in your mind as to why this other person just doesn't understand you. You figure that they must not be listening to what you are really saying, or they are just plain stupid, because everyone who is reasonable and familiar with the evidence (like you are) will obviously come to the same conclusion as you, right?

How Open-Minded Are You?

Nearly all of us think that we are open-minded, rational, unbiased, thoughtful people. We follow the evidence wherever it leads, and we listen to reason. When new evidence comes to light about something that we already hold an opinion on, we believe that we will process it in an unbiased way. This is hardly the case.

Review: A Universe From Nothing by Lawrence Krauss

I just finished “A Universe From Nothing,” by Lawrence Krauss. I found it intensely interesting and enlightening. From a purely scientific perspective, I found it engrossing and understandable, even for a lay-person like myself. There were definitely some points that I did not completely understand, but it helped me to also watch his lecture about this topic online for clarification.

A Universe From Nothing: Preview of a Review

Today I received my copy of Lawrence Krauss' new book, "A Universe From Nothing." I am excited to get started reading it, as his lecture at AAI 2009 about this very topic brought up many questions in my mind.

Does the Universe Have a Purpose? Debate Analysis

Perhaps you have watched the panel debate that took place last month in Mexico that pitted Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer and Matt Ridley against William Lane Craig, David Wolpe, and Douglas Geivett.  The proposed question of the debate was, "does the universe have a purpose?"  It seemed an important topic, with important figures on both sides, so I thought I would give my thoughts on it.  You can watch the debate here.

New Symphony of Science: A Wave of Reason

John Boswell from symphonyofscience has posted a new music video promoting reason, skepticism and science.  This could be the best one yet.  Watch, listen and enjoy.  Be sure to visit his site!

New Humanism Ad Campaign

Richard Dawkins appears in this tv spot that will be appearing on several networks very soon.  There are currently two other spots available to watch on considerhumanism.org.  The campaign features readings from holy books about various issues such as women's rights, violence, slavery, intelligence and homosexuality, and contrasts it with what humanists think.  You will find that what the humanists think is very much in line with what most thinking people think about morality and values.  The contrast between the ancient world's ideas and today's values is a stark one.

The ads are designed to make people consider the source of these holy books.  Do the values contained in the Bible or Koran seem like they were breathed from a perfectly moral god?  I think most will find that the ideas and morals found in holy books clash with our moral intuitions.  Apologists no doubt deal with these "problem verses" in effort to make them sound less repugnant, but the honest thinker should wonder why, if god himself inspired the entire thing, would he have the authors write down such dated thoughts in the first place?  It seems more likely that ancient people wrote what is contained in holy books, and their prejudices and morals of the day inspired them - not god.

The official site also has various ads that can be printed and distributed by the inspired free-thinker.  Print some out, work with the humanist club at your school or in your community to spread the word.

I Want Your Input!

I thought it would be an interesting task to make a comprehensive list of what Christianity asks its believers to accept, but seem incoherent and backward to people not raised in it.  A couple examples of what it would be:

Christianity asks us to accept:

• Our ancient ancestors were told to not eat a fruit, but did it anyway, and now every person who has ever lived since then is sinful and fallen from God.
• Everything, including humans with our many defects (and vulnerabilities) were created by a perfectly all-powerful, all-knowing, and infinitely far-reaching being, and he said it was "good."
• This same being, being infinitely powerful and knowing, cares about what job we get.

I am still compiling and will soon be lining up scriptural citations for the applicable ideas.  Let's see if I still remember my Bible!

This is where I need your help.  Can you think of some interesting things that Christianity (or just the Bible) asks its believers to accept?  I am looking for doctrines, historical and scientific claims, moral imperatives, etc.  Please list them in the comments section of this post or email me at doubtingeric(at)gmail.com.  Thanks!

Our Place in the Universe

Delusions of Grandeur

Humans have the amazing inclination to feel like we are the most important thing in the universe.  In the not so distant past, nearly everyone thought our solar system was all there was to the cosmos.  Not only that, but they also largely believed that the Sun and planets all revolved around the Earth.  We have since learned that the Earth revolves around the Sun (with all the other planets in our solar system), and our entire solar system revolves around the center of our own Milky Way galaxy.  In fact, up until as recently as the 1920's, astronomers were under the impression that our immense galaxy was all that existed.