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.

Animal Morality

Found an interesting TED talk on moral behavior in non-human animals. We are not so different. Watch it here.

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.

Christopher Hitchens: I Will Miss You.

I haven't posted anything in over a year. With the death of Christopher Hitchens, I have been inspired to again watch all the videos I can find of him on youtube and other sites. It is powerfully clear to me that the world is now, without him, greatly diminished. Luckily, his writings and spoken words remain, and many people can still benefit from them. He has played an important role in my life, and I will miss him immensely.

I thought I would include a transcript of his closing remarks in a debate he had with William Dembski in 2010, as I think his words here are especially poignant.

"The discussion about what is good, what is beautiful, what is noble, what is pure, and what is true could always go on. Why is that important, why would I like to do that? Because that's the only conversation worth having. And whether it goes on or not after I die, I don't know.  But I do know that it's the conversation I want to have while I'm still alive. Which means that to me, the offer of certainty, the offer of complete security, the offer of an impermeable faith that can't give way, is an offer of something not worth having.

I want to live my life taking the risk all the time that I don't know anything like enough yet. That I haven't understood enough, that I can't know enough, that I'm always hungrily operating on the margins of a potentially great harvest of future knowledge and wisdom - I wouldn't have it any other way. And I'd urge you to look at those of you who tell you - those people who tell you, at your age, that you're dead till you believe as they do - what a terrible thing to be telling to children.  And that you can only live by accepting an absolute authority.  Don't think of that as a gift - think of it of a poisoned chalice, push it aside however tempting it is, take the risk of thinking for yourself.  Much more happiness, truth, beauty and wisdom will come to you that way.  Thank you."

If you want to watch this bit, click here.

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 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.