A Response to The Don

Before I get into the philosophical discussion here let me tell you a little about how I stand as far as theology goes. I am NOT an atheist. I wish to clarify that since Don's chosen opposing viewpoint to his argument is atheism. I am not really an agnostic either though I generally claim to be whenever I am asked. My basic viewpoint is Not that God does not exist or that no one can know. I believe that God does exist. I just happen to believe He is not like what many people believe Him to be. More specifically I am against taking the Bible as absolute truth. This is where I pick up with disagreeing on the foundations of The Don's argument.

The Don's examples of negatives to the position q are as quoted:

"Position q faces some existential negatives:
1. Lack of moral law - moral relativism in which right and wrong are indeterminate.
2. No meaning - life loses meaning without some greater purpose, i.e. a theos directing things.
3. No hope - the atheist is unable to cope with evil and death, because there is no higher answer.
4. Pascalian wager - the Christian, if wrong, has fulfilled the atheist's test of life: happiness and fulfillment. The atheist, if wrong, has not fulfilled the Christian's test, and is subject to eternal judgment."

Part one is incorrectly conceived since moral relativism is not the belief that right and wrong are indeterminate. Moral relativism is the idea that there is no objective morality. Therefore the only determinable right and wrong that exist to moral relativists is subjective. It does however make one blanket law: Any system of ethics, which claims to be absolute truth, is incorrect. For a moral relativist there is no absolute truth. They follow moral rules simply because they have chosen those as the ones they value. They can still view other systems as evil or opposed to their system especially the ones who believe there is an absolute truth. Also it does not follow that a person who is an atheist is a moral relativist. Atheists can believe that there is an objective morality even if they don't believe in God. For instance if an atheist believed it was always wrong to cause others who have not attacked him physical pain. Pain is an objective stimulus that one can observe. If this statement did not have the always in it then it might be made by a moral relativist but it does and it is based on objectivity and the reason that one should adhere to it to create a stable society of people who don't hurt each other. Believing in an objective without action is good and evil is against everything a Moral Relativist stands for.

It is incorrect to think that atheists do not have a higher purpose. They may not believe in God but they can believe in higher values (i.e. courage, honor, justice etc.) whether or not those values coincide with the morality of the Bible. In essence they can choose or create their purpose. I am a firm believer in creating one's own purpose in life even though I do not believe in atheism. In order to keep this point one would have to objectively prove that God's values are the highest values regardless of God's existence and only by following them can a person live a fulfilling life.

It is wrong to suppose that atheists lack hope. Just because one lacks faith in God does not mean one lacks faith in other things. I would think a person could have faith in their fellow human beings since not all are evil. Humanity having been around a long time should continue to exist for quite some time to come this could be a comforting thought. In order for it not to be one would have be a pessimist and think of humanity as mostly evil. Coping with death without God or by that means an afterlife is not a problem for the atheist since if you cease to exist at your death you have no need for benefits afterward. Also a person would need to fear nothing afterward since one will feel nothing. With this outlook the only thing that matters is what one does in life. I shall write more on the idea of humanity as good or evil later.

Part four the Pascallian wager is wonderful in demonstrating the benefits of believing in God. However, it does not tell us what sort of God we should believe in other than one should believe in a God who provides infinite benefits in the afterlife. There are many Christian denominations with variations in their beliefs. Which version of worshiping the one deity that can provide these great benefits is correct? It cannot answer that for us.

The Don goes on to attempt to establish that the one true morality is that which is found in the Bible. He does so in three ways the first he maintains that the Bible is logically consistent and contains no contradictions. I disagree with this completely since the Bible does indeed have contradictions. One of which is the following:

"And the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew the men of SEVEN HUNDRED chariots of the Syrians, and forty thousand HORSEMEN, and smote Shobach the captain of their host, who died there." 2 Sam 10:18

"But the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew of the Syrians SEVEN THOUSAND men which fought in chariots, and forty thousand FOOTMEN, and killed Shophach the captain of the host."
1 Chron 19:18

This contradiction can of course be explained as an ERROR in transcription. There are other errors of this nature in the Bible. Although it may not be possible that God can make mistakes humans certainly can. The Bible carries the transcribed word of God not the uncorrupted word written down by His own hand. Now that I have shown that the Bible does indeed contain errors I will continue to attempt to show that it contains ones, which make it questionable as an only unquestionable source of truth.

"Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers."
Isa 14:21

"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin."
Deut 24:16

This contradiction refers to the idea that children bear responsibility for the sins of their fathers. This causes a problem for the idea of original sin since if the second line is true then no one bears responsibility for the first sin of Adam but Adam himself. But if the first line is true then the second line false since something cannot be both true and false at the same time according to the law of noncontradiction. Another problem with the idea of original sin is that it relies on value being intrinsic. The idea that man is evil not by his acts but of his existence itself is unreasonable. Original sin proposes that evil can exist as a characteristic of something without a standard of value to judge it by. Therefore, it does not have a reason for why something is evil. According to original sin humanity just is evil.

"For by grace are ye saved through faith . . . not of works."
Ephesians 2:8,9

"Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."
James 2:24

This is a very obvious contradiction. One line rejects the idea of works as being a way to salvation the other does not. I believe these examples to be sufficient to show major philosophical and theological contradictions. If not I do have more examples that I will gladly provide.

The second argument given is that the empirical evidence supporting the argument is overwhelming. I would have liked Don to go into further detail explaining the cosmological and microbiological evidence. However, I will make do with the mere mention of them. I disagree with this argument since the fossil record gives a great deal of evidence to support that the Bible is incorrect about the time man has spent here on earth. Yes there are gaps in the fossil record but these gaps are not any greater than the contradictions and errors I have shown to be in the Bible. It follows that it would be illogical to trust either the Bible or the fossil record as being unquestionable truth. Scientists are still questioning the fossil record today. New methods of DNA testing have shown that species thought to have once been related are not as close as appear and are in fact related to creatures of different sorts. Given its logical fallacies it would be logical read the Bible as valuable document of learning but not to view it as unquestionable infallible truth.

Continuing on this brings me to Don's third point that the Bible has experiential relevance. At the end of my last paragraph I do not completely disagree with this statement but continue that from the problems with the first two points it would be wise not to view its relevance as complete, unquestionable, or infallible.

I believe this satisfies the argument that Christianity cannot be seen as logically sustainable while viewing the Bible as the completely infallible truth. I hope my argument did not confuse anyone. If you have questions or comments please make them as I will be happy to answer.