http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF002.html

The law of entropy prevents order from coming out of chaos. So how do we get this order and complexity?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html

To quote G.K. Chesterton: “It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything.”

G.K. Chesterton was, apparently, an idiot. Evolution does not say that “nothing should turn itself into everything”.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA100.html

http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/whatevoisnt.html

You say that we experience guilt when one’s actions hurt another. Why should we value anyone above ourselves? What causes that? How does evolution account for my caring for the welfare of anyone but myself?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB411.html

For the last time — evolution has programmed us with many altruistic and social instincts, and the power of reasoning takes us from there.

Also, as a Christian I don’t believe I should be good because I’ll get in trouble with God if I don’t. That’s not the reason.

Good for you — now how about telling your less enlightened fellow Christians to stop threatening everyone with “turn or burn” scare tactics?

The article I read that you linked discussed that Lewis and those like him are hiding things about Christianity by insisting on starting with “mere Christianity”. I did use the term as term, I could have just as easily said basic Christianity.

You attribute a lot to evolution which is merely a term for a process of something complex coming from nothing. Which to me seems far more absurd than an all powerful all loving good God creating all that is as He has revealed himself as Creator and sustainer of all of creation to humanity since the beginning of time.

The law of entropy prevents order from coming out of chaos. So how do we get this order and complexity?

To quote G.K. Chesterton: “It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything.”

You say that we experience guilt when one’s actions hurt another. Why should we value anyone above ourselves? What causes that? How does evolution account for my caring for the welfare of anyone but myself?

Also, as a Christian I don’t believe I should be good because I’ll get in trouble with God if I don’t. That’s not the reason. “Good” actions come out of Christ transformation of my life not out of adherance to laws. It’s an extension of knowing Him, not an extension of worrying about judgment or rewards. (a blog on this topic will post on Monday).

The design of morality is a shadow of what its really all about. These principals of morality are in our design for our protection, but we often ignore them. We don’t do what we feel we ought to do and that is when we feel guilty. Why ought we do anything other than what we want to? Why this volitional battle? I don’t think evolution has the answers.

These problems go back to the Euthyphro, and they seem to suggest that friends of moral objectivity shouldn’t think morality depends on God. Instead, they should think that objective moral truths are necessary truths that even God couldn’t change, like the truths of mathematics and logic.

What? Mere Christianity is the name of the book from which you have taken the Moral Law argument. Did I accuse you of trying to hide anything?

There is no need to move on to secondary things when the primary foundation is not established.

Hey, I’m just fisking what you have written — following your lead, in other words.

As for your link on the moral law — I see both your assertions and the person who wrote the article as flawed because I’m not advocating that morality comes from religion, but that it comes from God. This is an important distinction.

How is my reasoning, or Adam’s, flawed? Our point, in case you missed it, is that morality comes from rational deliberation performed by human minds, not from any theistic source (whether that be God, faith, religion, or any such concept you care to use).

How does evolution account for this knowledge? For guilt and the need for justice?

Evolution has programmed us with some basic instincts regarding cooperation and altruistic behavior, and it has also given us brains that are capable of processing complex abstract concepts such as cause and effect, feelings and empathy, rights, responsibilities and justice. It is from these tools that naturalistic evaluation of morality can proceed.

Again, please read and absorb the linked essays. They explain non-theistic morality in great depth.

You say it is discovered that it is moral to act a certain way by human reason. How can that be objective?

Why do you think it isn’t, or can’t be, objective? We have uncovered plenty of objective knowledge through human reason. This process is called ’science’.

How can that lead to guilt?

As I’ve explained, guilt is a feeling that results from knowing that one’s actions have caused harm to another — perfectly naturalistic, perfectly explainable by reason, no woo required.

How is one person to say that slavery is wrong by human reason and the other to say that it is right by human reason? They are then at an impasse. Or is there some standard beyond human reason that provides for slavery being wrong?

*headdesk* *headdesk*

Both proponents and opponents of human slavery have claimed that their position is morally superior. It is obviously impossible for both of them to be right. How do we decide? Do we appeal to a creator (and I’ll ignore, for a moment, the fact that your creator’s holy book blatantly condones slavery), or do we use human reason?

Under the latter paradigm, we can clearly judge slavery to be a moral evil: human beings have rights and feelings; slavery tramples on them and induces misery, and is therefore morally wrong. Where is the supposed impasse? The pro-slavery position is obviously wrong and illogical. This is so simple that I am struggling to figure out how I can express it any more clearly than I already have.

When I said “mere Christianity” it was not to hide anything. I was only defining that when I said Christian worldview I was not addressing encompassing subcategories of the worldview, but foundational things. There is no need to move on to secondary things when the primary foundation is not established. Many atheist believe different secondary things, but they all believe there is no God. So that is where we need to start on both worldviews. The basics not the particulars. From the basics I am agreeable to moving into particulars, but it would not makes sense to move beyond the basics when our basic worldview is not agreed upon. I think that is why Lewis kept to the basics.

I am glad you and your wife think about what you believe and are willing and able to discuss it. There are many who do not think about it and just maintain a belief anyway (theist and atheist alike).

As for your link on the moral law — I see both your assertions and the person who wrote the article as flawed because I’m not advocating that morality comes from religion, but that it comes from God. This is an important distinction. For if it comes from religion, a person who grew up in a tribe in Africa with no contact with the outside world would have no morality. While they may do things that the majority of the world would not accept as moral they too have a conscious and an understanding of right and wrong even if the specifics are different.

How does evolution account for this knowledge? For guilt and the need for justice? You say it is discovered that it is moral to act a certain way by human reason. How can that be objective? How can that lead to guilt? How is one person to say that slavery is wrong by human reason and the other to say that it is right by human reason? They are then at an impasse. Or is there some standard beyond human reason that provides for slavery being wrong?

Please explain further how evolutionary progress provides a moral standard by which to judge good and evil?