my latest challenge to Matthew Flannagan

Readers of this blog will note that Christian philosopher Matthew Flannagan, who makes such a big deal out of the "fallacy" of moral relativity, quietly and conveniently stopped responding to me after I started battering him with justifications for moral relativity.

I recently posted another challenge to him at another one of his blogs, see here.  In case that comment gets deleted, I'm preserving it below:

Barry Jones 11 minutes ago ·

Dr. Flannagan,

What do you believe is unreasonable about the person who uses your professed degree in contemporary analytic philosophy, and their reading of the book you co-authored with Paul Copan (i.e., "Did God Really Command Genocide?: Coming to Terms with the Justice of God", specifically the parts defending Wolterstorff's Appropriation Model and Speech Act Theory), that you live in sin (i.e., for many years into the past up to and including the present, you have been and always are intentionally seeking out opportunities to "wrangle words", the sin forbidden in 2nd Timothy 2:14)?

14 Remind them of these things, and solemnly charge them in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless and leads to the ruin of the hearers.(2 Tim. 2:14 NAU)

Is that verse so clear from its grammar and context that you can safely determine that the hair-splitting trifles of language you undeniably engage in, surely aren't what Paul was condemning in that verse?

If the atheist was forced to make a choice, which person should he view as more likely to engage in the sin of word-wrangling? The average Christian walking down the street? Or a Christian with a degree on contemporary analytic philosophy?

If you wish to insist that your ceaseless arguments with other people about the meaning of words and phrases ISN'T the type of "word-wrangling" that Paul was condemning in that verse, then please provide at least 3 different dialogue examples of the sort of arguing over the meaning of words, that you believe Paul meant the reader to understand in that verse. From the immediate context, it sure looks like Paul was condemning word-wrangling involving Christian doctrine.

What's Matt gonna do?  Wrangle with me over the proper meaning of "don't wrangle words"? LOL.

Does the bible require Christians to do apologetics?  Yes.  Does the bible allow them to do the type of apologetics that involves their wrangling of words?  No.  According to Titus 3:9-11, you don't have interactive dialogue with those who deny Paul's veracity.  You "warn" them twicej (warnings don't require dialogue), then you are to have nothing to do with them.

 9 But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.
 10 Reject a factious man after a first and second warning,
 11 knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned. (Tit. 3:9-11 NAU)

Apparently, Paul placed more restrictions on his followers, than what he allowed for himself.  Probably because he felt that apostles had more privileges than non-apostles, or had greater spiritual power so that apostles could play such games with people without being as subject to the temptations of the devil as non-apostles.  So I don't care if Paul himself wrangled words, that doesn't automatically imply he wanted his followers to imitate everything he did.  Common sense says what the NT directly commands of Christians in general is far more imposing on their conduct, than their more indirect argument that they are allowed to do just whatever they find the apostles doing.  Paul also enraged entire cities to the point of his being arrested.  Gee, does that mean Paul necessarily wanted his followers to enrage entire cities and get themselves arrested?  If you did that, you wouldn't be able to form churches and obey the stuff in the pastorals on church government.  The last comment in Acts about how the Romans soldiers allowed Paul to promote, during house arrest, the very things that got him arrested, is absolute fiction.

Cold Case Christianity: Two Signs From Your Opposition Your Argument Is Sound

This is my reply to J. Warner Wallace's article

Cold Case Christianity: Two Signs From Your Opposition Your Argument Is Sound

Posted: 23 Jun 2017 01:31 AM PDT

Those of us who acknowledge the self-evident existence of transcendent, moral truth claims (i.e. “It’s never OK to torture babies for fun”) need to be prepared for opposition from unbelievers who anticipate and reject the implications.

Wallace fails, like all apologists, to demonstrate an objective moral basis for his maxim that nobody should torture babies for fun.  Wallace is free to pretend that this is an absolute because so many people agree with it, but then he runs into a brick wall:  human beings do not decide what objective moral values are.  Wallace is free to argue that the reason so many people oppose torturing babies for fun is because God put his laws into our hearts, but this is hardly conclusive, as there's an equally good naturalistic explanation for this moral:  we instinctively know that babies are the key to keeping ourselves from going extinct, therefore naturally, we find it most abhorrent to torture babies for fun, since  to torture them is to reduce their likelihood of survival.


Indeed, if Wallace found somebody torturing babies for fun, he certainly cannot demonstrate that this is offensive to any god, all he can do is point out how most mature civilized adults despise such child abuse, and then, like Frank Turek, insist that no naturalistic explanation can account for why humans recoil from the prospect of torturing babies for fun.

On the contrary, most would agree that if the adult man is having penetrative sex with a 4 year old girl, this constitutes torturing children "for fun", and yet some of the earliest Rabbis in the Babylonian Talmud asserted that such little girls were "suitable for sexual relations", that a girl becomes "sexually mature" at the age of three years and one day, that such a child hates the practice the first two times but likes it the third time, and that girls who are 11 years old or under must use contraceptives during marital intercourse to guard against her becoming pregnant at such a young age. Contrary to popular belief, these rabbinical rulings were serious legal precepts intended to apply to real-world situations, they are not mere thought-expermiments or debates about the outer fringes of the law. Yes, there are other Talmud statements that counsel against pedophiic-marriage, but these only come from the later Rabbis, not the earlier ones.  And a general rule of historiography is that the earlier version is likely more correctly representing the original (Numbers 31:18) than the later versions.

And yes, the Talmud also asserts that all of the virgin girls in Numbers 31:18 who were spared, were "fit for cohabitation".

If objective, transcendent moral laws exist, the need for an adequate source (a transcendent Moral Law Giver) becomes apparent (more on that in future posts). In order to avoid the need for a transcendent Moral Law Giver, some will do their best to deny the existence of objective laws in the first place.

"Objective morality" is a contradiction in terms, because morality is based upon value-judgments that people constantly disagree on, while objectivity deals with concrete truths that cannot be affected by human opinion.

In doing so, they often employ the same tactics used by defense attorneys in criminal trials; tactics that typically signal smart jurors the prosecution’s case is sound. I’ve written an entire chapter about this in my book, but I recently saw two of these tactics used in response to the “baby torturing” claim.

Distract By Focusing on Minutia

After asking the direct question (“Is it ever OK to torture babies for fun?”) in an effort to provide at least one example of transcendent, objective moral truth, a skeptic responded by arguing I was “equivocating on the word ‘OK’” because “‘OK’ encompasses a dozen denotations that do not include objective morality.”

Then apparently the only way you can successfully promote your books, as you do, is to advertise to completely gullible idiots who know next to nothing about philosophy or the law, and then you do this by pretending the most stupid skeptic in the world is representative of how most bible-skeptics would argue.

Sorry Wallace, but I start classifying you like a charlatan tv evangelist from TBN in the 1990's, when you choose to base your conclusions on such absurd premises.

 If you want an example of a smart bible skeptic who could really beat you to a pulp in a real debate, you should ask me that question, and I'd respond by pointing out why you are wrong:  "What do you think the answer a human being gives to that question, is doing to help you establish that morale maxim as objective?  Don't you believe that human opinion is insufficient to establish objective moral truth?"

You may respond that most people agree with the maxim and that the most plausible way to account for such pattern is god putting his laws into our hearts, but I answered that above:  we also instinctively know, no less than the higher mammals, that harming babies/children lowers their ability to thrive, and since it is our natural instinct to thrive, it's perfectly reasonable, with no god in sight, to have problems with a person who tortures babies for fun.

While it’s true I am often philosophically imprecise in an effort to “translate” and communicate complex ideas at a lay-level, I tried to imagine a definition for “OK” that would allow someone to justify torturing babies for fun. Even when I insert a variety of implied definitions for this term, the result seems the same:

“Is it ever morally acceptable to torture babies for fun?”

“Is it ever legally permissible to torture babies for fun?”

“Is it ever socially agreeable to torture babies for fun?”

“Is it ever proper to torture babies for fun?”

“Is it ever culturally satisfactory to torture babies for fun?”

“Is it ever emotionally acceptable to torture babies for fun?”

“Is it ever fair to torture babies for fun?”

“Is it ever just to torture babies for fun?”

See the problem?

Yes, you've used a stupid skeptic and pretended his dogshit belief is representative of what serious academic skeptics have to say.  Sort of like me promoting my books to atheist high-school drop outs and concluding from the stupidity we see on TBN, that Christianity is obviously false.

No matter which definition for “OK” I use, the answer remains the same. To focus on the term “OK” (as if it were some trick I was trying to employ) is merely a tactic offered to distract from the more important over-arching issue raised by the question.

Discredit Your Opponent’s Character

I responded to the skeptic as respectfully as I could: “I’m trying imagine a definition of ‘OK’ that would justify torturing babies for the fun of it. Which definition are you suggesting? Pick any definition you think works, and help me understand. How about this: Is it ever morally acceptable to torture babies for the fun of it?” The skeptic’s response demonstrated an immediate change in character. He became much more accusatory and described my second rendering of the question as a “shameful tactic”. He even claimed I was being dishonest. He began to focus on me rather than my argument.

Thanks for pointing this out.  Under your logic, internet apologist James Patrick Holding has been admitting, by his shit attitude toward everybody except his donors, that their arguments are likely correct.

Perhaps you’ve had a similar experience. Don’t be discouraged and, more importantly, don’t surrender your character. It’s easy to get “sucked in” to aggressive and demeaning exchanges when people start name calling, but there’s nothing more disheartening for me, as a Christian, than to see my fellow brothers and sisters argue for the existence of transcendent, moral truths while simultaneously ignoring the objective truth that we ought not be disrespectful to people who hold a view different from our own. We can reject their view without being obstinate and abusive.

Thanks again for admitting that as a Christian, you think there's an absolute objective law of God forbidding Christians from being disrespectful toward skeptics.  You clearly think J.P.Holding's demeanor as a Christian is unacceptable and unChristian.  I'll add you to the growing list of his detractors. 

Cold Case Christianity: Is “Right” and “Wrong” Simply a Matter of “Human Flourishing”?

  J. Warner Wallace, author of "Cold Case Christianity", banned me from his Facebook page despite the fact that I did not engage in any rule violations, and so it would appear that he simply got fed up with the fact that informed bible critics like myself find it rather easy to point out the flaws in the arguments he expects his followers to be amazed at.    

I also emailed Warner, twice, with an offer to engage in a written debate with him about any apologetics topic he wished.  He never answered.

In light of this, and in light of his relentless promotion of his books, I am forced to conclude that Mr. Wallace is dishonest in the sense that he will stifle criticism of his views, where possible, if he feels that criticism is likely to reduce sales of his books.  
My answer to J. Warner Wallace's Article entitled

 Cold Case Christianity: Is “Right” and “Wrong” Simply a Matter of “HumanFlourishing”?   Posted: 24 May 2017 01:02AM PDT 

 When it comes to moral truth, where do we get our notions of right and wrong?

 Answer: Since the bible says you should raise your children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and everybody agrees you can warp a child’s mind and morals by raising them wrong, its perfectly reasonable to conclude that we get our notions of right and wrong from the environment we were raised in.  And because all mothers will insist their babies showed unique personality characteristics as far back as birth, it would appear that some of the way we determine morals comes from our genetic predispositions.

Can we generate binding, obligatory concepts without grounding them in the nature of a Holy God?

No, what we do is talk to each other, find out who agrees with our morals, organize ourselves into cities and nations, elect leaders to pass laws consistent with the morality in our group, then tell everybody that you either conform, or face civil and criminal penalties.  On the other hand, it is the belief that obligatory moral absolutes come from God, that is precisely why fundamentalists can never resolve their disagreements with each other.  Calvinists have no problem believing it is consistent with God's love and justice for some people who die in infancy to end up in hell, while most other Christians are instinctively repelled by it.   This would provide a rational basis for dismissing the biblical view of God and thus dismissing the concept of absolute morals.  Worse, the God of the bible manifests conflicting morals within himself.  His first moral inclination is to go down the mountain and kill the disobedient Israelites, but he changes his mind after Moses talks some sense into His head:

 9 The LORD said to Moses, "I have seen this people, and behold, they are an obstinate people.

 10 "Now then let Me alone, that My anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them; and I will make of you a great nation."

 11 Then Moses entreated the LORD his God, and said, "O LORD, why does Your anger burn against Your people whom You have brought out from the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand?

 12 "Why should the Egyptians speak, saying, 'With evil intent He brought them out to kill them in the mountains and to destroy them from the face of the earth '? Turn from Your burning anger and change Your mind about doing harm to Your people.

 13 "Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Your servants to whom You swore by Yourself, and said to them, 'I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heavens, and all this land of which I have spoken I will give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it forever.'"

 14 So the LORD changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people.

 (Exod. 32:9-14 NAU)

  

As an atheist, I thought so for many years. Like Sam Harris (author of The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values), I argued that we can establish the moral value of any particular action by simply evaluating its impact on human well-being (something Harris typically refers to as “human flourishing”). Harris, a committed and vocal atheist, accepts the existence of objective moral truths but likens the establishment of such truths to a game of chess.

I am an atheist and I do not believe in objective morality, that is, that any morals are absolute.  I don’t know why you would ask me whether I think torturing babies for fun should is immoral.  Yes, I believe it is, but I am a human being, and a human being’s opinion does not an absolute moral make. 

In any particular game, each player must decide how to move based on the resulting effect. If you are trying to win the game, some moves are “good” and some moves are “bad”; some will lead you to victory and some will lead you to defeat. “Good” and “bad” then, are evaluated based on whether or not they accomplish the goal of winning the game. Harris redefines “good” (in the context of human beings) as whatever supports or encourages the well-being of conscious creatures; if an action increases human well-being (human “flourishing”) it is “good”, if it decreases well-being, it is “bad”.

An excellent reason to say Harris is wrong and that objective morality doesn’t exist, since obviously, what’s “good” to one person is “bad” to another, and if humans are the highest standard possible (as atheism would require), then the fact that human beings disagree on what’s good and bad is proof positive that there are no objective morals.  But lets not forget that even if we allow that Christianity is true, the god of the bible manifests conflicting morals.  In the NT, sex itself, not “illicit” sex, is still considered to be defiling and less than God’s highest good, when in fact sex is believed by most Christians to be a gift from a perfect god:

4 These are the ones who have not been defiled with women, for they have kept themselves chaste. These are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever He goes. These have been purchased from among men as first fruits to God and to the Lamb. (Rev. 14:4 NAU)

They didn’t remain undefiled from prostitutes, but undefiled from “women”, i.e., the sex act itself, regardless of whether it takes place inside or outside the marital bond, is still considered by this biblical author to be something that “defiles” a man to a certain extent, a view totally opposed to most modern Christians who think sex within a Christian marriage is a blessing from God, and therefore hardly "defiling".  Here the Revelation-author seems to be contradicting the forthright statement in Hebrews 13:4 that marital sex does not defile.

 What, however, do we mean when we talk about “flourishing”? It’s one thing to evaluate a behavior in terms of its impact on survival, and if we are honest with one another, this is really what drives Natural Selection. But Harris recognizes survival, as a singular goal, can lead to all kinds of morally condemnable misbehavior. History is replete with examples of actions that secured the survival of one group at the immoral expense of another. Harris suggests the goal is something more; the goal is “flourishing”. Human well-being involves more than simply living, it involves living a particular way. Human flourishing comprises a particular quality of life; one in which we honor the rights of others and seek a certain kind of character in order to become a particular kind of human group that has maximized its potential. See the problem here?  Harris has already imported moral values into his model, even as he seeks to explain where these values come from in the first place. One can hardly define the “maximization” of human wellbeing without asserting a number of moral values. What, beyond mere survival, achieves our “maximization” as humans?

I agree with you that Harris is wrong to believe in objective moral values, given that atheism would logically preclude objective morals.  But I deny that the last question above is legitimate.  The whole idea that we should strive for “maximization” stems from a greedy capitalist predisposition, which has manifested its true fruits clearly for the last 100 years.  It is enough to live life where we find ourselves and solve problems in our personal circumstances (i.e., paying debts, resolving family issues).  The drive of most people to “maximize” is precisely what has turned America into the ridiculous cesspool of hedonism it is.  I say chop wood, carry water, and put down that fucking cell phone.

 What does this even mean? The minute we move from mere survival to a particular kind of “worthy” survival, we have to employ moral principles and ideas. Concepts of sacrifice, nobility and honor must be assumed foundationally, but these are not morally neutral notions. Human “flourishing” assumes a number of virtues and priorities (depending on who is defining it), and these values and characteristics precede the enterprise Harris seeks to describe. Harris cannot articulate the formation of moral truths without first assuming some of these truths to establish his definition of “flourishing”. He’s borrowing pre-existent, objective moral notions about worth, value and purpose, while holding a worldview that argues against any pre-existing moral notions.  If, as a police officer, if I was watching Harris’ chess game and observed one of the players make a “bad” move, could I arrest the player? No. the definitions of “good” and “bad” Harris offers here are morally neutral. On the other hand, if one of the players was able to successfully cheat (without detection) and managed to win the game in this manner, could we call this behavior bad? He did, after all accomplish the goal of winning the game. We can only call this behavior “bad” if we begin with a notion about winning that identifies undetected cheating as a prohibited act; a moral truth that pre-exists the “chess game” and ought to govern its moves. Even though there are times when cheating can help us win (or survive) without any physical or emotional consequence, we theists recognize we’ve done something that “damages our soul” and offends the Holy nature of God (even if our behavior goes undetected by our peers).

Again, I disagree with my fellow atheists who think objective moral values exist.  Harris is just as wrong as Barker. 

When the atheist recognizes human flourishing as something more than mere physical or emotional survival, he too acknowledges the spiritual and moral nature of our existence, as he borrows from our theistic view to construct his own.

That is perfect nonsense.  Human “flourishing” is a very subjective thing, with greedy prosperity preachers saying you aren’t really flourishing unless you are rich, and the other Christians who contend that flourishing does not involve ease and comfort in this world.  My suggestion is that it is unreasonable for Christians to think spiritually blind atheists are obligated to figure out which of the spiritually alive people got the bible wrong.  Let God's likeminded one's get their act together, THEN they can have a hope of morally obligating non-Christians to see things their way.