Cutting Through A Teen's Moral Fog

It's been a while since I've posted a log from my archive of online exchanges. Here's one from a young person (whose screen name I've changed) who used to frequent an atheist chat room. It was obvious from interacting with her over time that she was confused about what she believed about life and was hoping that being a regular in the atheist chat would help her figure things out.

I wonder how many thousands of American teens she represents - both outside and within the church. Concerning the latter, I wonder if much has changed since Francis Schaeffer penned the following assessment of the evangelical church over thirty years ago in The Church at the End of the Twentieth Century:

We already are, of course, losing many of our young people, losing them on every side. It would be impossible to say how many have come to L'Abri from Christian backgrounds. And these young people have said, "You are our last hope." Why? Because they are smart enough to know that they have been given no answers. They have simply been told to believe. Doctrines have been given them without relating them to the hard, hard problems which these young people are facing. Those who come to us and say something of the nature that we are their last hope usually then speak of two things which discouraged them. First, they have not been given reasonable answers to reasonable questions. Second, they have not seen beauty in the Christian group they were in. The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer, Vol. 4, pp. 69-70.

YMIHere: Did you ever read any Carl Sagan?

KP: Yes, only a little. I've heard and seen him on television too.

YMIHere: He was in the Catholic newspaper my parents get, it was an argument whether he claimed God existed or not before he died. I don't like the newspaper, it's not the most tolerant paper I've read. It tells you what movies you should be allowed to watch! I think that's sort of weird.

KP: I doubt that that newspaper tells you what movies you should be allowed to watch. It probably reviews movies based on their moral content and makes recommendations based on that. And speaking of tolerance..you don't sound very tolerant of that paper and its views. ;-)

YMIHere: Well, it's really weird. It has these lists of movies and says which ones are ok for Catholics. I mean, they gave the movie "Clueless" a bad grade or whatever. They said it was indecent. It was a pg-13 movie for kids! lol, I am tolerant, i just don't agree with what they say. I try to have tolerance for the Catholic religion, but I think it's not really good for people. I was taught the strangest things in Catholic school.

KP: Why is it that if you don't agree with what they say and how they think, it's just a disagreement but if they don't agree with the contents of particular movies they're intolerant? What kind of strange things were you taught in Catholic school?

YMIHere: I don't know, that paper just makes me angry and I don't know why. Christian sexual education was taught, and I never agreed with any of it. Also, the pro-life stand that Catholics take on abortion.

KP: And why is that strange?

Tulipstem: Like a religion should tell women they don't have a right to choose to have a baby or not. That's just strange. And I never understood why people would want to do that. And Christian sexuality was against sex before marriage which was very confusing. I think it just confuses kids.

KP: The real issue isn't one of women's rights at all. The real issue is whether or not one can take the life of another innocent being. To make women's right the focal point is mistaken. Christians believe that sex is to be reserved for a monogamous, life-long marital commitment. What's so confusing about that?

YMIHere: What do you mean? She's the mother. It 's her right to take the life (if you think it is a life at all).

KP: Oh, so her being the mother gives her the right to take the life? On those grounds, then your mother has the right to kill you anytime she wants, right? After all, she IS your mother.

YMIHere: No. People who recognize that the baby is not life until a certain period of time believe in the right to abort a child. This, I guess, has to do with when the law recognizes a baby as being officially life. I haven't decided when I think this is but I have no problem with abortion being legal. My mother can't legally take my life. There's the whole legal difference.

KP: So whatever is legal is morally right?

YMIHere: No. It's acceptable.

KP: Well, the abortion debate isn't over what is acceptable, is it? I thought it was over what is morally right. In some South American countries it is both legal and acceptable for men to beat their wives. A few hundred years ago it was both legal and acceptable to own slaves and to treat them as property.

YMIHere: I don't know. I don't spend much time debating abortion. Yes. It's also legal in Peru for women to be forced to marry men who raped them and the men won't be charged with the crime. Sick, but it's how some cultures live. Things changed for the better, didn't they?

KP: In Hitler's Germany it was both legal and acceptable to kill Jews.

YMIHere: Yes. And things changed. It makes you think "what a screwed up" world.

KP: Is all you care about what is acceptable in the eyes of the majority? If morals are relative as you say they are, then one can't say that things changed for the "better." One can only say that things changed. "Better" implies some fixed and objective standard of what is good or right. Of course, you can say that things changed for the better in a very subjective sense - meaning that they changed to suit your personal preference.

YMIHere: Yes, if I lived in a society, I would live by the accepted rules. If it was Nazi Germany and I didn't agree with their society, what am I supposed to do? The Germans went by Hitler's society, as messed up as it was, because they had no choice. It's really depressing, but that's the way it is sometimes. I have to live by America's society and so do you.

KP: Well, I'm glad that not all had your compliant attitude. Otherwise, we might still be enslaving Blacks in this country.

YMIHere: And who changed things? The society itself?

KP: People within the society who were convinced that the law was wrong. The Abolitionists, for example, in the case of slavery. But according to what you're saying, one should never oppose the prevailing idea of what is "acceptable" and therefore social reform becomes impossible.

YMIHere: I don't agree. Societies can change what is acceptable in a society. Look at America, that's what politics is about. Sometimes the country goes through conservative periods (the Reagan era) but things change and the majority of people just go along with it.

KP: Furthermore, according to what you've said, there can never be such a thing as an unjust law since what is legal is all that matters. Since you do not hold to any moral order above human legislation, you have nothing to appeal to in order to make a judgment that a law is just or immoral.

YMIHere: I have a question. Do morals matter that much? What happens when there are no morals? What happens to people and society?

KP: Of course morals matter. Without them, chaos results.

YMIHere: how do you know this? Can I have an example?

KP: If there is no moral authority and therefore no accountability to anyone other than the person or group with the most power, then all sorts of atrocities can take place such as Hitler's Germany, Stalin and Lenin, and the late Romanian leader whose name I can't spell.

YMIHere: Hitler had no morals? No morals whatsoever? He wanted a society without morals?

KP: No, that's not what I meant. Of course no one is devoid of a moral system or a system of values. The real issue is what that system is based on. For example, it could be that my moral system is that anything that deprives me of pleasure is wrong and anything that gives me pleasure is right. If everyone operated accordingly, what would the shape of society be?

YMIHere: So what moral system should everything be based on?

KP: Our moral system should reflect the revealed character of God. He is the transcendent and absolute measure of what is objectively good and evil.

YMIHere: ok.

KP: I'd love to continue this but I have to get going. If you'd like, we can pick this back up when next we're on.

YMIHere: OK. I'd like to continue too. Bye.

A Very Brief Chat About the Nature of Rights and Humans

Reject the idea of transcendent, knowable moral truth and you must conclude that all moral judgments are simply expressions of personal or group preference. If the latter, then laws are merely codifications of the majority's tastes. Whatever is legal, according to this line of thinking, is right. Many abortion rights proponents, for example, quickly appeal to the legality of abortion as though that settles any dispute about the rightness or wrongness of the act.

Regardless of how vociferously one might espouse such a view, he or she is bound to betray it at some point. Inconsistency will rear its head somewhere if you patiently wait and attentively watch for it. The relativist will express disdain for laws he or she deems unjust or, as in the following brief exchange, will appeal to rights that exist independently of the law which naturally raises the question of their origin.

KP: Hello, PT. Mind if I ask a question?

PT: It depends on the nature of the question, but.... go ahead

KP: OK, thanks. Here's the question. Do you think that homosexuals have the right to same-sex marriages along with all of the benefits of marriage?

PT: I certainly do. I see no reason to deny them that.

KP: So you believe that some people have rights that the law doesn't acknowledge?

PT: Key word there: PEOPLE. I know JUST where you're going with this, and i don't acknowledge that a zef is a person.

KP: Fine. But as to my question, is your answer yes or no?

PT: in the context of MY definition of people, yes. I think the law does not acknowledge the rights of certain groups of people.

KP: So rights are not necessarily dependent upon legislation?

PT: Rights of PEOPLE shouldn't be, no.

KP: And if there are certain human rights that are not acknowledged by the law, do you think it's at all possible that there are certain human beings whose humanity the law doesn't acknowledge? What I'm asking is, does one's being a person/human being depend upon the law's recognizing him as such?

PT: The law recognizes homosexuals as people, it simply doesn't recognize their right to marry becuse of their sexual preferences.

KP: That's not an answer to my question though.

PT: It's the answer I'm giving you. It may not be the answer YOU want, but it IS my answer.

KP: If certain rights are not dependent upon legislation for their existence, why would anyone think that whether or not one is a human being is dependent upon the law?

More on Satanic Ethics (and Fashion)

A good friend emailed me in response to the conversation with a Satanist that I posted in three parts. He had some perceptive insights and asked a very good question that I'd like to share with other readers. His comments are in italics, followed by my reply.


I have a couple of comments on your exchange with the Satanist. First, logic certainly doesn't seem to be a big thing for him. He doesn't even recognize what a contradiction is. But self-deification comes through in his answers. Secondly, he did try to express a concept that may be legitimate as a rule for behavior. He denied the existence of an absolute moral standard based on right or wrong from God, but claimed a standard based on consequences. "If you do this it will only hurt you." He called it Karma and common sense, but I believe God uses that motivation, alongside the right and wrong motivation. "In the day you eat of it you will die," "Those who love money pierce themselves with sorrow," etc. Isn't it possible to arrive at some universal guidelines for behavior on the basis of consequences, apart from divine Law?

Thanks for the feedback on the conversation with a Satanist. I agree that God does use the fact that sinful behavior has negative consequences as a motivation. But I wasn't addressing the issue of motivation. I wasn't claiming that one should be motivated to perform or abstain from a given act on the basis of what is right or wrong. Rather, I was trying to get him to think about what best explains the fact that we can't help thinking and speaking in terms of objective moral truths.

The point I was trying to make was that even if we observe that a particular action yields harmful results, it doesn't follow that that action is morally wrong. At best, we can conclude that it is imprudent. Yesterday I broke out with what I believe is an allergic reaction to something my wife used in the wash. This morning when I was trying to decide how many Benadryl tablets to take, she said that I shouldn't (or ought not) take two because that would make me very drowsy. I decided to heed her advice but it wouldn't have been immoral or blameworthy of me had I decided to take two. The "ought" in her counsel is different from the "ought" in the statement "You ought not steal from your neighbor" as the latter "ought" conveys a moral prescription. Sure, pragmatic considerations can be helpful guides for behavior but they're not necessarily moral rules one is obliged to obey. Moral obligation requires some kind of moral authority. The Satanist, while denying the existence of a moral authority, expressed moral outrage as though some universally binding moral standard had been violated. This is why I wanted to press him on his likening urinating into the wind to doing violence to someone. He wanted to say that both are stupid acts with undesirable consequences yet it was clear that he made a moral distinction between them.

********************

And while we're on the topic of Satanism, I came across this interesting article about a Swedish designer who has increased sales of a new jeans line by incorporating a Satanic logo, an inverted cross on the forehead of a skull. Bjorn Atldax describes himself as a "devout anti-Christian" and admits to using the logo to make Christians angry.

Satanic Ethics - Part Three

Part One Part Two


Notna: Yes, there is. It's called gut instinct. The thought of murder or rape of a child simply makes me sick to my stomach and angers me. If it were done to someone in my family, the wrath I would bring would be just. However, I wouldn't kill or rape, but I might pay to have it done.


KP: Are you saying that people SHOULD believe as you do? And if not, then why do they "deserve" to be punished for not so thinking and acting in accord with YOUR beliefs? And by the way, the pedophile acts out on what he calls "gut instinct" as well.


Notna: KP, there is just a moral human code that should not be crossed. You and I know what it is but for those that don't, they don't deserve to live among us. They haven't evolved far enough from the ape yet. I know you understand...if I were to rape a child I would deserve whatever ill-will begets me.


KP: So this moral code is ultimately just the product of our biology? (Are you saying that people SHOULD believe as you do? And if not, then why do they "deserve" to be punished for not so thinking and acting in accord with YOUR beliefs? <---you havent answered this yet. )


Notna: The biology of the mentally elite. If only we could breed out mental imperfections of people like that society would be better as a whole. They serve no purpose except to instill fear. Let a robber try to take my wallet. He will leave a much wiser man. 


In this particular circumstance we’re discussing, YES, people should believe as I do. Anything less is uncivilized.


KP: Whoah! That sounds kind of authoritarian. 


Notna: Yet true. 


KP: What happened to free thought? Why should people join your herd?


Notna: That's not herd mentality, that mental awareness and eliteness...the wisdom to know that doing something like that is morally wrong.


KP: According to what standard of right? 


Notna: Human standard. The ability to judge naturally right from wrong. Other animals in the animal kingdom do not rape the young. Nor do they murder their own kind unscrupulously. 


KP: So on one hand you're saying that people should think for themselves (which in itself is a prescription) and on the other you're saying that people should think like you. 


So, we should use the animals as our measure of what is acceptable? I know of some animals that eat their young. What should we conclude from that?


Notna: I think for myself, KP. Nobody tells me how to think and personally, I can't tell a rapist how to think, but if he decides to rape I can tell myself to beat his sorry ass down. As for animals who eat their offspring, they don't do it out of malicious intent. Alligators do it to control their population in their environment.


KP: Should humans do it for that reason? There are some pretty overcrowded areas in the world. 


Notna: Alligators will not thrive if they overpopulate...We have actually barely begun to populate this planet. Our instincts do not tell us to eat our young, theirs do. But if that’s the only way for our species to survive, then so be it. My guess though, is by deductive reasoning that we would eat the old.


KP: Do you see how dehumanizing your position actually is? Looking to animals lower than ourselves to determine how we should live? This is exactly what the Bible says is the case when man refuses to acknowledge God in his thoughts and makes himself the final reference point of meaning and truth. He becomes less than what he actually is. 


Notna: See? The Bible is demeaning. Use intelligence and be less than you are. Repress, repress, repress. Love your neighbor even though he's a total c*******er. HA! Not this kid. Repress your feeling that you can't stand him and love, love, love - then end up hating yourself for it. What makes you follow such requests? You seem intelligent. Why waste your time trying to uplift people who can't uplift themselves? They look to God and hope some mighty power is going to pick them up and hand them what they want or blame Satan when things go wrong. Why can't we just be responsible for our OWN good & bad? 


KP: Notna, first things first. First of all, I didn't say that one must trash intelligence. I DID question however, whether it is intelligent to use the animals as the standard for our behavior. 


Notna: I say yes. Ecology applies to us as well as the animals. We ARE animals. We just happen to be self-aware and more intelligent than any other in the kingdom.


KP: Furthermore, it’s the kind of internal inconsistency that you’re demonstrating that makes me adverse to nontheistic thought. So, we should look to less intelligent creatures to determine how we should live. I see. That's intelligent. 


Notna: KP, it’s not inconsistency. I have not contradicted myself once. I think maybe you just want to debate and try to defeat a Satanist. You can’t tell me that I have changed anything I have said.


KP: Notna, It is inconsist to assert that one should think for himself and then to assert that one should think as you do. 


Notna: I didn’t say that either. I used ecological examples. We have animal instinct whether you like it or not. I choose to listen to mine. God chooses to repress it for you and make you feel guilty about it. You are completely misunderstanding me and I knew this was going to happen.


KP: Notna, do you think a pedophile has instincts? 


Notna: KP, there is free thought, and there is human responsibility. In order to be successful and thrive in this environment I think people SHOULD feel the way I do about murder and rape. Yes, the pedophile does have instincts and he should be locked in a room with kids that want to get abused [even with asterisks I couldn’t post what was originally said] Are there any? Nope! So I guess he should just be locked in a prison with bikers who will beat some common sense into him. 


KP: And someone should feel guilty and be punished for acting in accord with his biological instincts?
Notna: That is a biological goof, and other species would kill it off or strand it as a lame of the breed. 


KP: Oh, so biological goofs should be killed? 


Notna: Us, we just lock it in a cage and feed it. 


KP: Why should someone be penalized for what he/she can't control? Isn't that your objection to Christianity? Animals kill runts of the litter as well. Should we do that?


Notna: They can control it! Just like a junkie can control whether or not they smoke crack. They may crave it, but it's their own plotting and planning that makes it happen. 


KP: So you're saying that in some cases instinct can and should be repressed? 


Notna: We have places in society for the mental runts. We don't kill them because it's not morally objective. What purpose would it serve? 


KP: Can animals control their instincts? 


Notna: Sure. I've wanted to blindly murder someone in revenge as I'm sure you have. I think everyone has contemplated suicide at least once in their life, but what purpose does it serve? Free thought and inner-instinct is what stops you. And, yes, animals can control their instincts. Dogs under our command are taught to control theirs. But not all animals can and they don't live amongst us and we are wise enough to avoid them if encountered. 


KP: So, if not all animals can control their instincts, why would we choose to look to them to determine how we ought to live? 


Notna: KP, you are splitting hairs. I've made my answers quite clear and you are seeking holes that need not be there. I know you understand where I am coming from. If you want to know more, you’ll have to read the works of Anton LaVey. He does quite well at explaining it all in full color for you. 


KP: Why look to organisms driven by their biology apart from rational thought, to determine how we as humans should live? I appreciate your talking with me and hope that you'll be open to it in the future.



Notna: I don't base my entire existence on the actions of animals. I used it as an example and you are blowing it way out of proportion. I know you understand where I am coming from and your argument is becoming nerve-wracking. I find the luster to be gone in this conversation. Please read LaVey's works for your own education. You will see the light. Whether or not you agree with it, you will understand it. Thanks for talking to me. Have a good weekend.

Satanic Ethics - Part Two

Continued from Part One

KP: My earlier comment wasn't so much about the number of people who believe as you do. I'm quite sure there are many. Rather, I was curious as to why anyone SHOULD believe as you do.


Notna: SHOULD?! Honestly, it's self-fulfilling, gratifying, and when a lucid grip of it is obtained, you do hold the upperhand at times when you otherwise would not.

KP: So, people should do whatever is self-gratifying?

Notna: Yes, but responsibly so. Here comes the ethical stuff. I do not condone rape, murder, preying on the invalid, stuff like that - no matter how gratifying that is. That is NOT evil, that is STUPID! Those are the dipsh**s that turn to Satanism without knowing what it is and expect to be patted on the back. FOOLS!

KP: But why should people do what is self-gratifying? According to what authority is this ethical prescription based? And why shouldn't people do what is stupid?

Notna: Did you really just ask me that?

KP: Yes, I did.

Notna: C'mon KP, that doesn't even deserve an answer.

KP: Humor me. ;-) I'm just a dumb Christian, remember?

Notna: I never said that. Stupid actions get stupid results. Equate it to pissing into the wind.


KP: Do you have the same objection to pissing into the wind that you do to rape, murder, and preying on invalids?

Notna: Sure I do. It's like running in a circle. You're never gonna end up anywhere except chasing your own tail.

KP: So someone who pisses into the wind is as blameworthy as one who rapes a child?

Notna: No. Only equally as stupid.

KP: But there really isn't any basis for moral praise or blame, is there?

Notna: Someone who rapes a child deserves to have the living sh** kicked out of him. Someone who pisses in the wind needs not be touched. YUCK!

KP: So you believe in something like justice? But if there is no evil, why should there be justice?

Notna: Pissing in the wind doesn't cross the same moral boundary as rape or murder. It works the same way with the law actually. The rapists and murderers are punished worse than the guy who was throwing snowballs at cars. They are both stupid as hell.

KP: But if there is no real evil, why should there be penalization?

Notna: There is evil, but I don't find it to be defined the same way as the Bible. Fortunately Webster didn't write the Bible.

KP: Please tell me how you define evil. What is it?

Notna: Evil is LIVE spelled backwards. Everything that is defined as evil is something that we would possibly enjoy in THIS lifetime. Why repress it? Why spend this lifetime repressing myself in hopes of my "next" life that I don't even know I'm gonna have? Screw that! I'm having too much fun now and who should stop me?

KP: Deriving our ethics from the spellings of English words may not be the best practice. Furthermore, I think the child rapist enjoyed his actions. Why repress it?

Notna: Because it's f***ed up and if he raped one of my relatives he'd better find a nice secluded dungeon to hide in. I wouldn't kill him, I'd rather watch him live and suffer. We don't turn the other cheek. Nor do I think the meek will inherit the Earth. The strong will survive and that's just how ecology works. The meek don't win the Superbowl.

KP: Why does someone who does what you said he should, namely live for self-gratification, deserve to "have the living s*** kicked out of him?" He deserves to be penalized for what may be normal for him?

Notna: KP, why do YOU think? I just told you why I thought so. You're welcome to cuss. I'm a 30 year old adult.

KP: He deserves to be penalized for doing what he OUGHT to do? That's a pretty messed up ethical system where someone gets punished for behaving as he ought to.

Notna: Sure. That's causing harm and damage to another person who didn't deserve it.


KP: But you said people should do whatever is self-gratifying, didn't you? And now you want to punish them for it? That sounds unjust.


Notna: I also said what I don't condone. And Satanists only believe in doing harm to those who well deserve it. Whether it be through magick or through personal physical vengeance.

Notna: No one is supposed to rape a child and you know it. You sound like one of the stupid ass misdirected people who turn to Satanism for all the wrong reasons and get disgruntled when they figure out they're dumber than hell.

KP: I'm not advocating the rape of children. I'm just trying to follow the logic of your position. Please don't be upset with me. But you've already said that people ought to act consistently with their desires. Now you're saying that in some cases those desires should be repressed. But I thought your objection to Christianity was exactly because you saw it as repressive. Why should the rapist conform to the herd mentality of civil laws?

Notna: KP, we are all required to be responsible humans. Actions like that need repercussion. Things like that were not meant to be. I'm not upset with you, I just think this debate may be losing a bit of its luster. There are some things xtiantiy preaches that I have no problem with. But sleeping in, overeating, sex, indulgence, etc. - those are self-gratifying and don't hurt anybody else.

KP: So we are morally obliged not to harm another? Is that what you're saying?

Notna: Yes, when it comes to victimizing an unsuspecting individual who does not deserve it.

KP: And the authority that issues this moral obligation is....?

Notna: The rapists who escapes the law because the big-breasted 14 year old wore a revealing shirt should not be free from getting his face smashed in by the girl's father.

KP: And the authority that issues this moral obligation is......?

Notna: In Satanism there is no "authority." Satanism is not meant for people who prey on the weak for no reason.

KP: So if there's no authority, then what is the origin of this moral obligation you keep talking about?

Notna: It is simply a moral code of humanity and harming someone in that manner simply buys bad karma. If you wish for bad things to happen to you, go ahead and pull sh** like that but don't cry when the sky starts falling.

KP: But why am I morally obliged to abide by the moral code of humanity? If there is no transcendent authority, then there is no such obligation.

Notna: You are not obliged but if you do it, don't cry about the results. You get what you deserve.

KP: So then I'm NOT obliged to not harm another, am I? There ‘s no objective basis for this obligation you keep appealing to. It's simply a statement of your personal preference. But then the question is, Why should I abide by your personal preferences? I fail to see how your position isn’t reducible to subjectivism and ultimately nihilism. You DID say that your ethical assertions were only your opinions, right?

Notna: For the most part. But you’re looking for holes that don't possess lucid thought. You're making the argument of an uneducated fool. I realize that you're not, but you're trying to make me defend myself instead of having stimulating conversation.

KP: I'm simply asking you to be consistent, that's all. And I don't see asking you to defend your position as being diametrically opposed to stimulating conversation. And there’s no need for you to engage in insult and ad hominem argumentation. If my argument is flawed, please point out how. Otherwise, please address my questions.

Notna: I wasn't. I concurred that I knew you weren't stupid. Anyway, I am quite consistent.

KP: There is no objective basis for this obligation you keep appealing to. It's simply a statement of your personal preference. But then the question arises, why should I abide by what you prefer? You DID say that your ethical assertions were only your opinions, right?

Notna: I don't try to shove it down your throat with fear tactics like the friggin' Christians do. There is no God of everlasting power that I am to be afraid will strike me down if I have sex with someone I just met. Where's the justice in that, man? My opinion as well as others, but there is no law other than the laws of magick or karmic consequence that will strike me down if I do something stupid.

KP: So you believe it's wrong to "shove one's ideas down someone's throat" (whatever that means)? But that again is simply a statement of your personal preference, right? There's no objective standard by which we can determine that that is actually wrong, is there?

Part Three

Satanic Ethics - Part One

Starting today and concluding early next week I plan to post the log from an online exchange with a self-professed Satanist. Reviewing this dialogue reminded me of something C.S. Lewis wrote in his preface to The Screwtape Letters. In warning against the two equal and opposite errors of disbelieving in devils and obssessing about them, Lewis noted that evil spirits "...hail a materialist or a magician with the same delight." In our fractured, postmodern ethos, sometimes the materialist and the magician are, as in the case with the individual I'll (uncreatively) call Notna, one.

I chose not to omit the profanity used by my conversation partner though I have replaced some letters with asterisks. My reason for leaving such language untouched is because I think Christians have to stay on point and not get sidetracked by such speech. Furthermore, we need to perceive and portray fallen life as it really is so that depravity and lostness are not diluted. I also believe that our willingness to listen to what a person is saying under and at times, through such coarse language is part of our witness.


I'm fully aware of the limitations of conversations like these. This one didn't "seal the deal" and culminate in my dialogue partner's repentence and faith. In fact, I didn't even get around to presenting the gospel. However, as Mark Coppenger notes in the article I linked to in the previous post, such encounters "can strip away smugness, loosen up hardened soil, embarrass treasured criticisms and sow disarray in a pagan worldview." My goal in exchnages like the following is the same as that described by Greg Koukl. I really like the image:

I want to put a stone in his shoe. All I want to do is give him something worth thinking about. I want him to hobble away on a nugget of truth he can’t simply ignore because it continues to poke at him. Whether the opportunity is a short one with a transient audience or a long one with a captive audience, my goal is the same - a stone in the shoe.

________________________________________________________________________

Notna: No I'm not materialistic if by that you mean that I only believe in that which is "tangible" or "proveable.” Magick is not tangible or proveable any more than the power of God but believe me when I tell you that it is real.

KP: I had in mind philosophical materialism, the idea that all that exists is that which consists of matter and/or material processes.

Notna: I base things on reasoning and intellect. I can choose when and how I react spiritually. I have an energy as well as anyone else, and how I direct it is not materialistic, nor can it be.

KP: Can you tell me how Magick is consistent with rationality whereas Christian theism isn’t?

Notna: Because I can practice it solitarily with my OWN influence. I am the keeper, and I'm not being instructed or told how to do it. It is all performed with my own mentality and creativity.

KP: That doesn't really answer my question, though. The fact that I can do something solitarily doesn't mean that it is necessarily rational. I may choose to believe a whole host of things privately but there is no necessary connection between that and their being rational.

Notna: I use rationality to decide when, how, and if a ritual is appropriate. I'm not told to have this ceremony on this specific day, or worship this deity on this day, etc. It's a thought-out mental process first. I'm not amongst a herd of sheep who repeat after their "teachers."

KP: I think you're missing my point. Does it necessarily follow from the fact that I believe something on the basis of authority that the belief itself is irrational?

Notna: You'd have to understand where I come from. I do not condemn you for your beliefs. What you asked me was, am I materialistic and the answer is no. I explained why.

KP: Please tell me where you come from.

Notna: What do you want to know?

KP: Whatever it is that you think I need to know in order to understand your position.

Notna: It would require a lot of reading. Truthfully, I am a Satanist which does not mean I worship Satan WHATSOEVER. I simply oppose Christianity, and I believe it is repressive and an insult to human nature. It rides guilt on people for being normal.

KP: Thank you for telling me.

Notna: No problem. I come into Christian rooms to learn more, not make enemies. Nice talking with you.

KP: With you as well.

KP: Can you tell me whether you believe there are any ethical absolutes?

Notna: Sure, there are ethical absolutes. What you reap is what you sow. But there are times when boundaries are crossed and ethics don't apply.

KP: What do you believe to be the nature of those absolutes?

Notna: I suppose the nature of the situation in which they apply could alter the nature of the absolutes, however I believe in karmic consequence. This conversation could get really deep, man. Not to mention long-winded.

KP: That's no problem for me. I thrive on such conversations. :-)

Notna: There are so many ethical absolutes. What would you like to inquire about?

KP: Your objection to Christianity seems to be on moral or ethical grounds, at least to some extent. Am I right?

Notna: Somewhat. I don't think overall that it is immoral, but I believe it promotes herd mentality, control, and represses free thought. I don't think it's unethical necessarily. For some people it works. For me, I just have trouble swallowing all of it. It's tough living as a religious minority. You must know when to shut up and when to speak.

KP: Well, you certainly must believe that it is immoral to repress free thought, right? And you obviously believe that people should not promote or submit to a "herd mentality."

Notna: Indeed it is. And I believe that for SOME people Christianity does just that. They look to religion to answer for everything, they give themselves no credit for good and blame Satan for everything that goes wrong.

KP: So, in some sense you're making ethical prescriptions, aren' t you?

Notna: Somewhat. I guess I could see how you might think that. But to me it feels like more of a personal inhibition to the theory.

KP: You're making assertions about how people SHOULD or SHOULD NOT behave and/or believe, aren’t you?

Notna: Those are just my opinions and that is how I base the path I choose to take.

KP: But nevertheless, you're making ethical assertions.

Notna: By no means are my ideas indoctrinated nor should they be followed by everybody. The mentally weak could not handle the left hand path. They would crumble. Perhaps I am making ethical assertions but everyone does.

KP: You're right about that. But what I'm curious about is why anyone else should believe as you do.

Notna: A lot of people do. More people believe as I do than you think. Benjamin Franklin, for one. I’m curious as to why people believe as you do. That's why I come to the Christian room and debate. Once in a while I meet someone lucid such as yourself. Mostly I get brainwashed, scripture quoters would couldn't conjure up a debate to save their butts.

KP: LOL

Notna: You laugh ‘cause you go to the same room.

KP: Yes. And believe me, what I see here at times frustrates and disturbs me. I agree that there is a mindlessness that is rampant in some segments of Christendom but I don’t believe (obviously) that that is inherent to Christian faith. Rather, I think it is more of an accommodation to the mindlessness and anti-intellectualism that so pervades our culture.

Notna: Well, actually this conversation turned out nicely. I thought this would be the battle of evermore. If you are interested in what I believe, Barnes & Nobles or Books-a-million carry or can order the collection of writings from Anton LaVey. I don't expect you to succumb to his theories, but it may be educational to you.

KP: I'm vaguely familiar with the Satanic Bible.

Notna: Satanism has the same misdirected goofballs, but they are not recognized, nor welcomed. They come looking for orgies and some magic power that will hold them high above the rest, and that's not at all what it's about. It's almost completely psychiatric theory.

Part Two

Naturalistic Religion Thinks Moral Certainty is Wrong

Beliefnet reports that a fledgling religion known as Universism has named Todd Stricker as its new executive director. A native of Chicago, Stricker has plans to make Chicago the national headquarters. From the article:

University of Alabama-Birmingham medical student Ford Vox started Universism in 2003, saying that Christianity, Islam, and to a lesser extent other world religions are harmful because they attempt to impose their own version of moral certainty on others.

Through the Internet, Universism has recruited 8,000 atheists, deists, freethinkers and others who rally around the notion that no universal religious truth exists and that the meaning of existence must be determined by each individual.

Apparently, Mr. Vox thinks it's wrong to impose one's version of moral certainty on others. I wonder if he's certain about that. And if he is, how is what he and his fellow "believers" are doing different from the world religions they are protesting? In the case of actions taken by some Muslims, I think the charge of trying to impose a certain view on others sticks. However, for reasons I offered in a previous post, I don't think that Christians or other religious people seeking to persuade others of their views constitutes their "imposing" their perspective on others as though by force.

The truth of the matter is that every worldview gives rise to prescriptions concerning human conduct, including Universism. Its premise that no universal religious truth exists leads to the conclusion that each individual must determine the meaning of existence for him or herself. A corollary of this belief is that it is wrong for me to try to get you to adopt my interpretation of life. But that's the very thing Mr. Vox and his associates are seeking to do every time they attempt to convince others that their philosophy of life is superior to others.

You can learn more about Universism at their website.

Forcing My Religion?

STR's Steve Wagner recently pointed readers to a compelling response to the frequently-raised accusation that those who contend for a particular moral position in the public square are seeking to impose their morality on others. Follow the link and check it out. I concur with Steve that it's a thing of beauty.

A related charge is that Christians, in trying to persuade others of the gospel, are guilty of forcing our religious beliefs on our hearers. In addition to having answers to such criticisms, it's equally important to be prepared to ask the right questions of those who level that charge. Questions are wonderful teaching tools whose power, I fear, we don't appreciate nearly enough. Just look at how deftly Jesus used interrogatives to instruct as well as to expose the false assumptions and impure motives that laid behind his detractors' arguments.

The following is a transcript of an online exchange in which I posed some questions to someone claiming that it is wrong for religionists to "force" their beliefs on others.

KP: So you believe that people shouldn't force their views on others?

Chaotic: Yes, I BELIEVE that, though I still don't consider it a BELIEF

KP: Then what do you consider it?

Chaotic: I also believe you shouldn't talk with your mouth full, but its not a belief, sorry, I don't have a word handy for what I would call it.....courtesy perhaps

KP: Both cases are prescriptions as to how people should conduct themselves, no?

Chaotic: In my opinion, yes.

KP: Then they have to do with ethics in some sense, don't they? They are beliefs as to how people should act. They are components of your ethical system.

Chaotic: I suppose they are. Let me rephrase myself: Since it is my belief that attempting to force your belief on others is wrong, attempting to force your beliefs on me is an infringement of my ethical system.

KP: Are you saying I shouldn't infringe on your ethical system?

Chaotic: I can't control your actions

KP: Can I control yours?

Chaotic: No.

KP: Then how can I force my beliefs on you?

Chaotic: It is your RIGHT to force your belief on me but that doesn't mean I have to listen.

KP: So you're saying both that I shouldn't force my beliefs on you AND I have the right to do so?

Chaotic: Yes. A bit of paradox, eh?

KP: So, in other words, I shouldn't exercise my rights?

Chaotic: I have the right to do a lot of things I shouldn't (at least, shouldn't in my opinion).

KP: So really, you're trying to limit my freedom. Who are you to force your beliefs on me?

Chaotic: Nice try. Actually that's not what I said at all. I'm merely saying if you wish to force your beliefs on me, I am obliged to ignore you because I don't believe you should. But you can talk to yourself all day if you like.

KP: You're telling me that I have the right to do something but that I shouldn't exercise it. How is that not a limitation of my freedom? And why shouldn't I use it? What is the basis of that "shouldn't"?

Chaotic: I am telling you, according to my beliefs, you shouldn't. But that doesn't mean you can't.

KP: But how can I force my beliefs on you when you've already said that I can't control what you do? What exactly does it mean to "force my beliefs on you"?

Chaotic: You can ATTEMPT to force them on me.

KP: But I never can, right?

Chaotic: No, I suppose not.

KP: So really, what you were saying is that people shouldn't do what they can't do.

Chaotic: Semantically speaking, yes. Since we are being so technical, I should say that I meant "attempt to force beliefs" from the start.

KP: But if I think people should try to force their beliefs on others (whatever that means) then it's OK for me to do so, right? After all, there's no standard outside ourselves to which we must conform and by which we can judge each others' actions, right?

Chaotic: Right. It's ok for you to do that, though I disagree with it.

KP: So really, within the framework of your system, "People shouldn't...." translates into "I don't like it when people.....," right?

Chaotic: Crudely.

KP: Didn't mean to be crude. Just wanted to get down to the brass tacks.

Chaotic: Well, we're all brassed out

KP: So, why do you use the language of moral imperative to express your personal likes and dislikes?

Chaotic: I made an error in semantics earlier. That is the bare bones of it. I wasn't expecting to have it surgically analyzed. I was just trying to say " I don't like it when people try to force their beliefs on me." But it came out, "People shouldn't force their beliefs on me."

KP: I think it came out that way because that's what you truly believe although it's inconsistent with your professed relativism. No one lives consistently with relativism nor can they. Our actions, and at times our speech, betray us. I think you're more of an absolutist than you think.

Chaotic: Thanks for the character evaluation

KP: Am I wrong?

Chaotic: Couldn't tell you exactly. You say I'm more of an absolutist than I might think. I obviously can't give you an objective analysis of what I am compared to what I think I am.

KP: That's a good point. Do you think you're a consistent relativist, then?

Chaotic: I don't think I am a consistent anything. Tell me why you think I am or am not a relativist.

KP: Well, I think you espouse relativism based on your presentation of your ethical beliefs. I know that you're not a consistent one, however, because you are created in the image of God and He has revealed Himself in part through the workings of your conscience as well as by the standards by which you judge others. No matter how you try, you can't be other than what you are as an image-bearer of God living in His world.

Chaotic: Of course, that is simply your belief. I consider myself Humanist, though I know I do not live up to that every day.

KP: When you make statements about what people should or should not do, as though appealing to some objective standard of ethics, you're leaving your worldview and borrowing from another. There is no basis for such assertions on your presuppositions. At most, your philosophy allows you to say what you don't like people to do. You can't say anything about anything but your own inner world.

Chaotic: Agreed. Alas, I am not perfect, I needed you to point that out too.

KP: I just wanted to show you that your worldview reduces to relativism and subjectivism. Ultimately it ends in skepticism.

Chaotic: Probably.

Homosexual Flies?

The New York Times reports that researchers have identified a master sexual gene in fruit flies. Males artificially given the female variation of the gene exhibit female sexual behavior directed toward other males. Likewise, females given the male version of the gene attempt to mate with other females. According to the study's lead author: "We have shown that a single gene in the fruit fly is sufficient to determine all aspects of the flies' sexual orientation and behavior."
Dr. Michael Weiss, chairman of the department of biochemistry at Case Western Reserve University expressed optimism that "this will take the discussion about sexual preferences out of the realm of morality and put it in the realm of science."
I find it interesting that Dr. Weiss is only hopeful that human sexual orientation might be accounted for biologically. If the findings of the fly study were applied consistently, sexual behavior of all kinds could be accounted for in terms of genetic determinism in which case it would be inappropriate (might we say "wrong?") to offer any moral evaluation whatsoever.

Absolutes and Arguments

Today in The Revealer Jeff Sharlet faults the New York Times' Michael Sokolove for failing to challenge Senator Rick Santorum's perspective on the role of faith in the lives and thinking of America's founding fathers in a profile of the politician appearing in yesterday's paper. Sharlet takes issue with Santorum's portrait of many of the founders as men of faith who sought to establish the nation on "traditional values" and attributes Sokolove's failure to correct this rewriting of history to the NYT's bending over backwards to treat Christian conservatives fairly.

I'll not get into the debate over history. What interests me more is something Sharlet says about the nature of moral absolutes and argumentation. He says:

A moral absolute can only derived from an absolute authority, beyond the realm of argument. Santorum "rejects" the very absolutes he claims to uphold by offering reasons -- i.e., the non-absolute work of human minds -- in their behalf. Once Santorum engaged in the debate over gay marriage by suggesting that one reason for opposing it was that it could, in his imagination, lead to bestiality, he abandoned the concept of a moral absolute, a truth so self-evident it requires no explanation. Unlike Santorum, an almighty Lord does not need to resort to the illustration of "man on dog" to lend authority to his decrees.

What I find puzzling is the claim that anyone who believes in absolute moral truths belies that claim by offering reasons for them. To the best of my knowledge there is nothing inherent in the concept of a moral absolute that precludes reasons being offered in its defense. If, in fact, God's character is the foundation of both objective moral truths and rationality, then it shouldn't strike us odd that sound reasons can be offered in defense of the ways in which he has commanded us to conduct ourselves. To do so is not to lend authority to those moral dictates but simply to illustrate the consequences and absurdity of violating them.

Moral argument can be a means of reminding people of what they do know but which, for various reasons, they'd prefer not to keep in mind. The Bible refers to this as suppressing the truth in unrighteousness but even if one rejects the Bible as an authoritative source, reflection upon our own lives as well as those of others should make us aware of the great capacity we have for self-deception. What atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel writes about his own fear of religion in The Last Word is applicable to the question of moral knowledge:

I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that (p. 130).

In the concluding chapter of his book What We Can't Not Know, J. Budziszewski distinguishes between those who are honestly confused about moral matters and those who would only like to think they are. The former "rarely need more than reminders and simple clarifications: reminders of the moral principles which have been shoved aside, clarifications of the ones which have been distorted." Concerning the latter he notes:

The main reason it seems so difficult to clear up honest moral confusion is that most moral confusion is not honest. People do not fall into profound error about the basics of morality by accident, and the fault never lies entirely with their deceivers. Yes, someone may put out his foot to trip them - but they shut their eyes, pretend they don't see it, and take a fall. In such cases, the reminders and clarifications which ought to clear up the error don't work, and the reason is not that they are logically inadequate, but that the one who is deceived does not wish to be undeceived. The instant his rationalization for moral wrong has been exploded, lo, he has thought of another one. Its premises may be completely opposed to the premises of his previous rationalization, but this does not bother him; any port in a storm! In fact the "any port in a storm" sort of reasoning is so common in cases of willful confusion that it provides a rule of thumb for identifying them (p. 211).

Moral absolutes don't depend on arguments for their authority for in that case they would be contingent. What arguments can do is remind us of what we already know but would rather not.