Friday, January 7, 2011

Atheism, subjective morality, and pedophilia

First of all, my apologies to Jason for getting his name wrong in the previous post.

I do need to clarify two things before I proceed. First, Jason wrote: “I consider the link there and accusation that I support pedophilia to be a hit-and-run, so I'm okay with making a hit-and-run in return.” Unfortunately Jason misunderstood me. I was not accusing him of supporting pedophilia. In fact, I even wrote: “I don’t mean to suggest that the Lousy Canuck, [Jason], supports pedophilia.” But I guess there’s no need for getting upset about it since I also misread him and got his name wrong. I’m not accusing Jason of supporting pedophilia, rather, I’m saying that his rejection of pedophilia does not comport with his atheism, since atheism cannot account for universal and invariant laws.

Second, I’m not a defender of a “god,” or some kind of deity, but rather the one and only true God revealed in creation and the Bible. I am not a supporter of “religion” as it is often understood. (Many atheists like to lump Christians in with Muslims under the category of “religious people” – which is to beg the question.) I believe that Christianity is religion, and anything else that goes by the name of religion is really just idolatry.

Unfortunately for Jason, he has already lost the debate in his first reply. He writes: “...all morality is subjective.” But this claim is self-defeating. If all morality is subjective, then no one is obligated to accept the claim that all morality is subjective, since the claim is not objectively true – it would just be a matter of subjective opinion. But if Jason says that the claim is objectively true, then all morality is not subjective. Do I have a moral obligation to accept the claim that all morality is subjective? If yes, then morality is not subjective. If no, then I reject the claim and instead embrace the claim that morality is objective. Saying that all morality is subjective is analogous to saying there’s no such thing as truth – which is a ridiculous idea since the claim presupposes that it is true.

When we go to apply Jason’s idea of morality to pedophilia, we see the disastrous results, namely, that pedophilia cannot be said to be objectively wrong, since our atheist friend Jason believes that morality is subjective. This is why I said that Jason’s rejection of pedophilia does not comport with his atheism. The atheist in Jason wants to say that morality is subjective, but the part of him in his heart of hearts that knows God wants to say that pedophilia is wrong regardless of human opinion on the matter. Or does Jason actually believe that if most humans supported pedophilia then it would be ok? Really?

The atheistic notion of morality actually provides the very justification for pedophilia that pedophiles want, even if atheists don't intend it. The pedophile can argue that pedophilia is right because it can’t be said to be objectively wrong. Unfortunately this is where atheism takes you.

There are other comments Jason made that I want to deal with but I don’t want this to drag on too long, so just one last thing. If Jason is correct (objectively or subjectively, I’m not sure) that “all morality is subjective,” then someone should ask him if people have an objective moral obligation to embrace atheism. If yes then, well, you see what I mean.

6 comments:

George W. said...

Peter,
This is really not a good idea. I go over some of the reasons why over at Lousy Canuck. I'm trying to be a friend here. You cannot and will not win this argument with these people. They are too smart, too well trained, and too experienced to fall for the shell game.
I hope you know that is what it is, Peter. I have to assume that Greg was smart enough to know what it was, if only he were alive to tell you to reserve the argument for the flock and only the most gullible atheists. It works exactly once, and only if the poor mark has never encountered it before.
Just please, for the sake of your pride, and the intellectual legacy of a good Christian man, don't drag this out to it's inevitable conclusion.
Erase this comment and the mention of Lousy Canuck and all specifics that might lead your TAG friends to the fact that you cannot win this argument. Then you can keep on believing that you have it all figured out.
Eventually your special pleading will be revealed for what it is, you will not be able to maintain the logical highground, you will be forced to say things that betray your ignorance, and you will disappear in a huff. I've seen it before.
Consider this a friendly warning.

Peter said...

George: "You cannot and will not win this argument with these people."

It depends what you mean by win. The truth of a position is not determined by whether people are convinced by it. The reason I defend Christianity is not first and foremost to convince people of it (though that is certainly an important part of it) but to defend the God who created you and me and who offers forgiveness of sins because of Jesus Christ.

George W. said...

No worries Peter. I mean to say that your premise will be revealed to any free thinking and logical person as complete and utter hogwash. Every person, christian or otherwise, will have the ability to follow you faulty logic to it's faulty conclusion. They will see the logical bankruptcy of your premise, and by extension the TAG philosophy.
Yes, though, you are right. You most certainly will still find some way to claim victory.
So let me amend that statement.
"You cannot and will not help yourself and your future ability to perpetrate this fraud if you continue to argue this with these people."
Thank you for the correction, I hope I've made myself a little more clear now.

Unknown said...

Well, PRAISE GOD IN THE HIGHEST OF HEAVEN & EARTH!! I enjoyed reading it! Keep up the faith!

Anti Money Laundering said...

I think ethics is always there; it's not always a very thoughtful or reflective ethics.

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry, but remind me again what the Bible's minimum age limit is on sex & marriage. What is the "objective" minimum age cut-off line?