Tag Archives: Relativism

Mentoring

Does being a nice person make your religious beliefs true?

3 Comments

I used to really enjoy listening to Dennis Prager and Michael Medved back when I wasn’t writing all the time. And one of the things I noticed about these two famous Jewish radio talk show hosts is that they believed that the test of whether a religion is true is whether it results in good behavior.

I agree with Dennis and Michael on many topics, but not on this topic. When it comes to religious epistemology, I am solely and completely concerned with only one question. Is it true?

The Pugnacious Irishman posted recently on this topic of whether 1) subjective experiences and “good” works, or 2) correspondence to reality, should be the standard for choosing a religion.

He writes:

For Christian public school teachers, the most interesting opportunities happen in the staff lounge at lunch.

As I sat down to eat lunch on Friday, a few of the teachers were talking about Mormonism.

“My pastor calls Mormonism a cult. That pisses me off. Why doesn’t he just leave them alone? The Mormon kids in my classroom are such nice and dependable kids.”

[…]“You know, I’ve got a better question to ask. Rather than asking, ‘does a certain religion make nice and conscientious followers’ (which is a plus in some ways), a more fundamental question to ask is, ‘is the religion true‘?”

One of the teachers at the table balked, “That can be kind of hard to determine, can’t it?”

“Not necessarily. If a religion makes historical and scientific claims, it can be verified or not. Most of the monotheistic religions make these types of claims, so they can be tested in that regard.”

A religion that is verifiable has a distinct advantage over religions that are not.

[…]It was a good conversation. And that is the fundamental question, isn’t it? A certain religion can produce nice people and still be wholly false. Of course, you need to figure ‘what kind of person it produces’ into the equation–if a certain religion, followed accurately, routinely produced a Charles Manson, that would most definitely be a strike against it–but that isn’t the most fundamental issue. It’s necessary, but not sufficient.

Rather, the most fundamental question you should ask is, “is the religion true?” Asking such a question doesn’t make you intolerant or bigoted.

When it comes to choosing a religion or talking about religion, the first and only rule is to focus on public, testable, propositional truth. The reason why so many Christians struggle to get into the kinds of conversations that Rich gets into is because they are not taking Rich’s approach. Find the claims of a religion that can be tested, then test them.

Share

Polemics

Religious pluralism and moral relativism are self-refuting

43 Comments

Check out this post from Neil Simpson’s blog.

Neil writes:

Self-refuting: [Religious pluralists] claim that other paths to God are valid, but they specifically exclude Christians who think Jesus is the only way.  But if all these paths are valid, why isn’t orthodox Christianity?  And if orthodox Christianity is valid, then these other paths are not.  Also, the definitions of “God” in these religions are mutually exclusive.

Pluralists simply don’t understand or apply the logical law of non-contradiction: You can’t have a personal God (Christianity) and an impersonal God (Islam) at the same time, or be saved by faith in Christ alone (Christianity) and by good deeds (everybody else), die once and face judgment (Christianity and Islam) and be reincarnated (Hinduism), Jesus dies on a cross (Christianity) and Jesus does not die on a cross (Islam), etc.

In the same post, he also explains why religious pluralism actually an arrogant and hypocritical point of view, not a tolerant one!

Now, check out this post from Pugnacious Irishman.

Rich explains how to do defeat moral relativism without even saying a word. You better learn how to do it, because the majority of the people you meet today believe in moral relativism. Rich knows – he’s a school teacher and this is the ethical theory that all the young people subscribe to.

My thoughts

This sort of weak tolerance of all viewpoints and moralities doesn’t cut any ice with open-minded atheists and skeptics. They like to discuss arguments and evidence. The best atheists and agnostics are guided by reason and evidence, so they are not offended by your exclusive views. On the contrary: the fact that you hold to unpopular, divisive views appears to them as courageous and authentic. Remember, Anthony Flew was an atheist once. Sure, most atheists are guided by untested assumptions and selfishness, but some of them can be reasoned with.

Share

News

ACLU fascists thwarted while trying to jail Christians for saying prayer

5 Comments

Story from CNN. (H/T My friend Ken)

Excerpt:

A judge has ruled in favor of two Florida school administrators who faced contempt charges for saying a prayer at a school luncheon, according to a group that helped represent them.

U.S. District Judge M.C. Rodgers ruled Thursday in favor of Frank Lay, principal of Pace High School in Pace, Florida, and school athletic director Robert Freeman, the Liberty Counsel said.

Lay and Freeman could have faced up to six months in prison and fines if convicted. They were accused of violating a consent decree banning county school employees from initiating prayers during school events.

[…]But the American Civil Liberties Union, whose lawsuit led to the consent decree, has maintained students have a right to be free from administrators who foist their personal religious beliefs on them.

Fascism is the idea that the state suppresses the inalienable rights of its citizenry by substituting the values and duties of the government (the rulers) for the values and duties of individuals.

Here’s how it works:

  • Inalienable human rights are granted by the Creator
  • Only the Creator of the universe can grant inalienable human rights to his creatures
  • Freedom of religious expression is self-evidently an inalienable human right
  • Christians exercise their freedom of religious expression
  • Atheists in the ACLU don’t believe in a Creator
  • If there is no Creator, then “rights” are just social conventions that vary by time and place
  • So atheists in the ACLU cannot ground inalienable human rights
  • Without an inalienable right to freedom of religious expression, suppressing the religious liberty others is permissible
  • Atheists in the ACLU can use government to silence, suppress and imprison unwilling Christians
  • Atheists in the ACLU are offended by the free expression of Christianity in public
  • Therefore, atheists in the ACLU find it rational to suppress the human rights of their neighbors using state coercion

There is no such thing as human rights in an atheistic “survival of the fittest” universe.

Atheists in the ACLU prefer to use the state to suppress any public religious expression, because the public expression of religion makes them feel badly. The feelings of atheists is sufficient to justify silencing, suppressing, imprisoning and in even killing people who make them feel bad. They are not so much interesting in debating the merits of the cosmological argument – they just want to shut down dissent so they can feel comfortable about their atheism.

Here is my entire series of posts explaining why moral behavior is irrational on atheism. Their worldview just doesn’t ground objective moral values, objective moral duties, self-sacrifice and the significance of moral decisions. And when the chips are down, they show their fascist colors. Atheists want to dismiss the claims of objective morality so they can pursue pleasure, and they don’t want you using your freedoms to remind them of their own depravity.

UPDATE: Kreitsauce is from the panhandle and writes this comment below:

I’m from the Florida panhandle, and we thought this whole thing was ridiculous because:

1. Lay and Freeman have done an unbelievable amount of good for the school and the community. It’s real Christianity making a difference that has had such a profound impact.

2. The school already teaches a Bible elective.

3. The school meeting where the prayer took place was housed in a church.

4. The prayer was spontaneous, not a willful violation of criminal law.

5. All protests have been peaceful, even in the face of opposition. The believers have mostly been praying and singing hymns.

6. Lay and Freeman have strong student, community, and parent support.

He also links to this youtube video:

Share