While this post contains my direct challenge, I've also answered Flannagan point-by-point in each of his Challenge of Moral Relativism posts. See answer to post 1, answer to post 2, answer to post 3.
I am strongly suspicious that Flannagan will do what he has done before, and what he is very good at...and escape answering my criticism on the merits, all because he thinks my reply is "off-topic".
But I've already called him on the carpet for this tactic. I said:
Flannagan did not specify how I might communicate to him certain challenges that would, in his opinion, technically go "off-topic" from a blog post he wrote. Therefore he can hardly complain that I posted a strong rebuttal to his moral objectivism, in reply to his blog post wherein he asserts his belief in moral objectivism.I have a two-part response: a) you continue evading my most powerful rebuttal to you, and b) a request on how can I present you with my own scholarly rebuttals of your Christian beliefs in a way that doesn’t constitute me “changing the subject” or “evading the issue”...Second, I would like to know how I might go about presenting you with my criticism of bible inerrancy and my criticism of the Genocide book you co-authored by Copan, and present such in a way that doesn’t constitute my “changing the subject” or “evading” an issue.
I told him before that under his criteria for what's off-topic, I'd be going "off-topic" if I wrote about green apples in reply to a post from him about red apples. After all, he didn't raise the subject of green apples in his blog post, so discussion of green apples constitutes my "evasion" of the issue, amen?
(!?)
If Flannagan wishes to set forth any such trifling bullshit, let him remember Jesus who rebuked the Pharisees for focusing so much on technicalities that they ignored the more important stuff:
23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others. (Matt. 23:23 NAU)Conservative inerrantist Christian scholar Craig Blomberg explains:
In the first two the Pharisees and scribes have misjudged priorities in God’s world; in the third and fourth they misjudge priorities in God’s Word. Minor matters are overly elevated; major ones are neglected. The former category includes tithing, even down to small herbs (“mint, dill and cummin”; cf. Lev 27:30). In the latter category appear “justice, mercy, and faithfulness.”…Christians in many ages have done a remarkable job of majoring on minors and minoring on majors. A scandal of the contemporary church is its unparalleled fragmentation into hundreds of denominations and groupings. Many of these divisions have been over issues nonessential to salvation. True Christians must stand uncompromisingly against all professing believers who promote teaching which, if embraced, would prevent people from being saved (Gal 1–2) but must bend over backwards to get along and cooperate with those who differ on doctrines that do not affect a person’s salvation (1 Cor 9:19–23). Otherwise our disunity seriously undermines Christian witness before a watching world.Blomberg, C. (2001, c1992). Vol. 22: Matthew (electronic ed.).Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 345).Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.
So even if my reply to Flannagan was technically "off-topic", doesn't prudence and wisdom counsel that Flannagan prioritize replying to my challenge as somewhat more important than the earth-shattering debauchery of going "off-topic"?
I cross-post here the reply I posted to Flannagan's blog, linked above:
--------beginquote----------------
1 response so far ↓BarryJun 23, 2018 at 8:48 amMatt said:
“This means that Christians are objectivists about morality. Objectivism holds that: certain moral standards are correct independently of whether you, I or our society believe they are or accept that they are.”
If that is true, then you should be able to establish the
correctness of the proposition
“torturing babies to death solely for entertainment purposes is objectively immoral”
WITHOUT relying on what anybody else “believes or accepts”
about that subject.
Indeed, the dictionaries tell us that “objective” means
So go ahead…demonstrate that that the proposition
“torturing babies to death solely for entertainment purposes is objectively immoral”
is a true fact “not dependent on the mind for its
existence.”
Another dictionary defines ‘objective’ as:
So go ahead…demonstrate that that the above-cited moral
proposition has “reality independent of the mind”.
You know…just like you also don’t need any human input
whatsoever to demonstrate anything else that you would characterize as having
“objective” existence, such as trees.
If you start asking me questions, you’ll be violating the
definition of objectivity. You don’t need my input on anything, nor do you need
to know whether I accept or believe any certain way about it, to achieve your
own stated goal of demonstrating the above-cited moral proposition to be
objectively true.
You could also clear things up by directly answering the
question of why you think said baby-torture is objectively immoral in the first
place.
Is it immoral because the bible tells you so?
Is it immoral because most humans say it is immoral?
is it immoral because you personally find it revolting?
Is it immoral because all strong feelings about a moral
issue necessarily come from God?
Some other reason or reasons?
I look forward to your replies,
Barry
--------end of quoted reply------------
I could have added more problems:
Many Christians are 5-Point Calvinists and believe God has infallibly predestined each individual sinner to make the exact choices that they do, including sin. Calvinists deny that God wishes to save everybody, and they happily blame God as the ultimate author of sin and evil. Calvinists say our sense of freewill is entirely illusory, we do not have the ability to deviate from whatever future course of action God has predetermined for us.
Logically, that would require Calvinists to believe that the reason some people think it is morally permissible to torture babies to death solely for entertainment purposes, is because God predestined them to think and feel that way. Nothing justifies a person's moral opinion more than the truth "God infallibly predestined me to feel this way and I had no ability to deviate from this result."
Then there's the small problem of god requiring that teen girls endure death by burning if they engage in prostitution before leaving their priest-father's house (Leviticus 21:9). This moral came from God, so...was it "objective" (i.e., applicable to all people regardless of culture)?
Then there's the small problem of whether rape would be objectively immoral if God caused a man to rape a women. Flannagan would, of course, immediately retort that the question is illegitimate since nothing in the bible says God would cause a man to rape a woman. I beg to differ:
Isaiah 13, full chapter2 Lift up a standard on the bare hill, Raise your voice to them, Wave the hand that they may enter the doors of the nobles.
1 The oracle concerning Babylon which Isaiah the son of Amoz saw.
3 I have commanded My consecrated ones, I have even called My mighty warriors, My proudly exulting ones, To execute My anger.
4 A sound of tumult on the mountains, Like that of many people! A sound of the uproar of kingdoms, Of nations gathered together! The LORD of hosts is mustering the army for battle.
5 They are coming from a far country, From the farthest horizons, The LORD and His instruments of indignation, To destroy the whole land.
6 Wail, for the day of the LORD is near! It will come as destruction from the Almighty.
7 Therefore all hands will fall limp, And every man's heart will melt.
8 They will be terrified, Pains and anguish will take hold of them; They will writhe like a woman in labor, They will look at one another in astonishment, Their faces aflame.
9 Behold, the day of the LORD is coming, Cruel, with fury and burning anger, To make the land a desolation; And He will exterminate its sinners from it.
10 For the stars of heaven and their constellations Will not flash forth their light; The sun will be dark when it rises And the moon will not shed its light.
11 Thus I will punish the world for its evil And the wicked for their iniquity; I will also put an end to the arrogance of the proud And abase the haughtiness of the ruthless.
12 I will make mortal man scarcer than pure gold And mankind than the gold of Ophir.
13 Therefore I will make the heavens tremble, And the earth will be shaken from its place At the fury of the LORD of hosts In the day of His burning anger.
14 And it will be that like a hunted gazelle, Or like sheep with none to gather them, They will each turn to his own people, And each one flee to his own land.
15 Anyone who is found will be thrust through, And anyone who is captured will fall by the sword.
16 Their little ones also will be dashed to pieces Before their eyes; Their houses will be plundered And their wives ravished.
17 Behold, I am going to stir up the Medes against them, Who will not value silver or take pleasure in gold.
18 And their bows will mow down the young men, They will not even have compassion on the fruit of the womb, Nor will their eye pity children.
19 And Babylon, the beauty of kingdoms, the glory of the Chaldeans' pride, Will be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.
20 It will never be inhabited or lived in from generation to generation; Nor will the Arab pitch his tent there, Nor will shepherds make their flocks lie down there.
21 But desert creatures will lie down there, And their houses will be full of owls; Ostriches also will live there, and shaggy goats will frolic there.
22 Hyenas will howl in their fortified towers And jackals in their luxurious palaces. Her fateful time also will soon come And her days will not be prolonged. (Isa. 13:1-22 NAU)
Logically:
Premise 1: Everything God does, is morally good.
Premise 2: God causes some men to rape women.
Conclusion: Therefore, when a man's rape of a women was caused by God, that rape was morally good.
Can we take God's clear admission of responsibility for causing rape ("I will stir up the Medes..."), at face value? Or will Flannagan argue that the only objective way to interpret this is by presupposing biblical inerrancy and thus tossing out any interpretation that contradicts another part of the bible?
Hosea 13 describes much the saem type of divinely-caused atrocities:
Once again, how can Flannagan accuse the pagan invaders who do these things of being objectively immoral if they are, in fact, doing what God wanted them to do?1 When Ephraim spoke, there was trembling. He exalted himself in Israel, But through Baal he did wrong and died.
2 And now they sin more and more, And make for themselves molten images, Idols skillfully made from their silver, All of them the work of craftsmen. They say of them, "Let the men who sacrifice kiss the calves!"
3 Therefore they will be like the morning cloud And like dew which soon disappears, Like chaff which is blown away from the threshing floor And like smoke from a chimney.
4 Yet I have been the LORD your God Since the land of Egypt; And you were not to know any god except Me, For there is no savior besides Me.
5 I cared for you in the wilderness, In the land of drought.
6 As they had their pasture, they became satisfied, And being satisfied, their heart became proud; Therefore they forgot Me.
7 So I will be like a lion to them; Like a leopard I will lie in wait by the wayside.
8 I will encounter them like a bear robbed of her cubs, And I will tear open their chests; There I will also devour them like a lioness, As a wild beast would tear them.
9 It is your destruction, O Israel, That you are against Me, against your help.
10 Where now is your king That he may save you in all your cities, And your judges of whom you requested, "Give me a king and princes "?
11 I gave you a king in My anger And took him away in My wrath.
12 The iniquity of Ephraim is bound up; His sin is stored up.
13 The pains of childbirth come upon him; He is not a wise son, For it is not the time that he should delay at the opening of the womb.
14 Shall I ransom them from the power of Sheol? Shall I redeem them from death? O Death, where are your thorns? O Sheol, where is your sting? Compassion will be hidden from My sight.
15 Though he flourishes among the reeds, An east wind will come, The wind of the LORD coming up from the wilderness; And his fountain will become dry And his spring will be dried up; It will plunder his treasury of every precious article.
16 Samaria will be held guilty, For she has rebelled against her God. They will fall by the sword, Their little ones will be dashed in pieces, And their pregnant women will be ripped open. (Hos. 13:1-16 NAU)
Since when is it objectively immoral to do something God wanted you to do?
Does Flannagan think that sometimes God wants people to engage in objectively immoral acts?
If God wants you to force women to endure abortion-by-sword (v. 16), and if everything God wants is "good", then it is "good" to obey when God impells you to hack pregnant women to death.
And yet something tells me that Matthew Flannagan would probably insist that hacking a pregnant woman with a sword and yanking out the fetus constitutes an objectively immoral act. And so, under Hosea 13, the infinitely good God wants certain people to engage in objectively immoral acts.
Now you know why I turned down several offers to become a Christian philosopher.
