Kevin DeGraaf’s Blog

I just received my new phone, a Treo 680, and am testing how well its browser interoperates with Wordpress.

Update: it works pretty well. 

Cops pay 3 a.m. visit to tell man his door is unlocked

LAKEVILLE, Minnesota — A Lakeville man says he feels violated after two police officers woke him up at 3 a.m. to tell him his door was unlocked.

Their surprise visit was part of a public service campaign to remind residents to secure their homes to prevent thefts. Usually, officers just leave notices on doors.

But they went further in Troy Molde’s case on Thursday. Police entered the house where four children under 7 were having a sleepover, and then went upstairs to Molde’s bedroom.

Are these police officers insane? Invading someone’s house in the middle of the night is bad enough, but entering a bedroom as well?

Let me be very clear: pull that nonsense on me and you will find yourself staring down a .40-caliber barrel.

If you identify yourself as a police officer and explain your presence, I will dial 911 and have a supervisor sent down to resolve the situation. However, if you reach for your gun, I will have no choice but to start firing and keep firing until the threat you pose is neutralized. Michigan’s castle doctrine law will immunize me from prosecution and civil suits.

I don’t want to kill anyone, especially not a police officer, but what the hell do you think is going to happen when you barge into bedrooms at 3:00 in the morning?

What could possibly be the justification for something like this?

The officers told Molde his garage door was open, the TV was on, the keys to his truck were left in the ignition and the door to his house was ajar.

A police spokesman says the intrusion was justified because the officers’ initial door knocks went unanswered, and they wanted to make sure nothing was wrong.

Granted, this homeowner is an idiot for neglecting to secure his property, but that does not give the police the right to trespass, especially in such a dangerous manner.

This is a response to Answer Bearer’s post entitled “Moral Framework“, which is a response to Lisa’s post entitled “Unmuddling Morality“.

• If there is a moral law, then there is a Moral Law Giver.
• There is a moral law
• Therefore there is a Moral Law Giver

I agree with the logical structure and with premise #2. I disagree with premise #1 and, therefore, the conclusion. But first, let’s address the concept of subjective vs. objective morality.

There is a difference between agreement on specifics of right and wrong and a basic understanding that there is right and wrong. The specifics can be subjective at times; however, the framework is objective.

Agreed.

If morality was subjective to a culture or a person, one could say that the English slave trade or the American slavery was not wrong to those who didn’t believe it to be wrong. However, I think the reality is that it was always wrong even when people justified it to be right. Also, just because a community justifies something to be right, doesn’t mean deep in their souls they know it to be right.

Agreed.

If morality is subjective then we have no right to judge another culture or community for doing atrocities to people such as the holocaust. However, if it is objective and all people really do know right from wrong somehow then the Nuremburg Trials were warranted.

Agreed.

In my opinion, you have been arguing against a straw man. You seem to be assuming that, because we reject belief in a deity, we also reject the concept of universal, objective morality, or that if we do accept the idea of objective morality, we have no basis on which to do so. These are common (and tiresome) theist canards.

While it is certainly possible to be an atheist and reject the concept of objective morality (since atheism is simply a position on a single issue and is not, in and of itself, a philosophy or a worldview), most atheists, in my experience, subscribe to the framework of secular humanism to some degree or another and therefore tend to view morality as something that is objective and the product of logical reasoning. Lisa and I wholeheartedly embrace this position.

Given that we’re all in agreement that morality is not subjective or culturally-relative, let’s proceed.

The second part of the syllogism proclaims God must exist because there is a moral framework. How else could a standard of morality exist in humanity if it were not for a conscious designer placing it there? The objective nature of a moral standard that man kind experiences guilt when he breaks it and demands justice when it is broken against him is not explained by evolution.

Allow me to quote from the always-excellent Adam Marczyk: “[Atheism] can accommodate both the existence of a moral law and the manifest fact that not every culture or individual is aware of it. The explanation is straightforward: morality is not something implanted in every person’s heart by a creator, but something derived from careful deliberation and a rational understanding of our place in the world and our relationships to each other.”

In other words, morality, which is objective, is discovered through careful reasoning, not by reading a primitive book or appealing to a magical sky fairy. Our evolved brains are more than capable of taking stock of situations, weighing the pros and cons of various courses of action, and anticipating (and empathizing with) the feelings of others.

Further commentary on this “Mere Christianity” argument can be found here. Further commentary on non-theistic morality is available here. Lisa linked to these essays in her post; I would strongly urge you to read them in their entireties before replying.

Again that is why I maintain that non-Christians must borrow from the Christian worldview regarding these things to even posit questions about good and evil and how to differentiate between the two. It’s the only worldview that gives a good explanation about how this all works and is the most viable in corresponding to reality.

As I’ve shown, this is false. The godless explanations I’ve presented are far more parsimonious and logically satisfying than the nebulous supernatural dreck proposed by theists of all stripes.

Regarding the Bible condoning slavery, it does not. Jesus didn’t come to force political change; that was not His mission. He knew that the heart change that happens from knowing Him would change the world and force would never produce love which was what was needed to treat people the way He designed them to be treated

Did you miss Lisa’s list of Biblical passages that condone slavery? Would you care to address them directly?

Yet another child has died of religious stupidity:

Authorities say a teenager from a faith-healing family died from an illness that could have been easily treated, just a few months after a toddler cousin of his died in a case that has led to criminal charges.

An autopsy Wednesday showed that Beagley died of heart failure caused by a urinary tract blockage.

He probably had a congenital condition that constricted his urinary tract where the bladder empties into the urethra, and the condition of his organs indicates that he had multiple blockages during his life, said Dr. Clifford Nelson, deputy state medical examiner for Clackamas County.

“You just build up so much urea in your bloodstream that it begins to poison your organs, and the heart is particularly susceptible,” Nelson said.

Nelson said a catheter would have saved the boy’s life. If the condition had been dealt with earlier, a urologist could easily have removed the blockage and avoided the kidney damage that came with the repeated illnesses, Nelson said.

Benton said a board member of the Followers of Christ church contacted the authorities after Beagley died at his family’s home. The teen had been sick about a week, and church members and his family had gathered to pray Sunday when his condition worsened, Benton said.

The group of sociopaths responsible for his death also killed his 15-month-old cousin, Ava Worthington, back in March.  Fortunately, it looks like Oregon’s legislature is taking steps to force religious parents to seek medical assistance for sick children instead of merely praying over them.

I know that moderate Christians join me in recoiling in horror at this “faith-based healing” nonsense (and insist that I’m attacking a strawman, not their actual worldview).  However, what they need to realize, and soon, is that their “moderate” acceptance of Bronze Age mythology enables these raging lunatics.  The adherents of this dangerous cult would have their children forcibly rescued in a heartbeat if it weren’t for the fact that religion is so revered, so respected, so untouchable in our culture.

Those of you who avail yourselves of medical care while simultaenously praying for God’s intervention, babbling uselessly into the sky while insisting that the work of human doctors and human medical researchers is somehow a manifestation of divine providence, give ideological shelter to those who believe in the literal healing power of prayer.  Death ensues: not symbolic death, not figurative death, not “moderate” death — real death.  Real children are violently and painfully robbed of life because their faith-addled parents deny them care, or convince them (this case was about a 16-year-old) to reject care.

Only the steady march of rationalism can solve this problem.  I fervently hope that, within my lifetime, it shall.

Lisa has started a new blog: Godless Woman. Check it out!

In contrast to her old blog, which was more general in nature, Godless Woman is specifically atheism-related.

I said I was leaving, but I’ve changed my mind (for now). Lisa and I, as a newly-married couple, bought a house in Ypsilanti, MI.

We moved most of our furniture and possessions last weekend, and we’re cleaning up the last of our junk over the course of this month.