Friday, January 7, 2011

Arrogant Christianity? MP3 Audio by Tom Gilson - Apologetics 315

Brian Auten posted another gem recently. Here is a lecture by Tom Gilson discussing Christian arrogance. Brian wrote the following in his introduction:

Are Christians arrogant when we say we know the truth? Is it morally acceptable for us to say we have access to truth that applies to every person? Or are we being offensive and rude, trying to impose our version of truth on everyone else?

This addresses one of popular objections to Christianity. I've heard it a lot from comedian Bill Maher. This is definitely a lecture worth listening to. It intrigues me because the objection presupposes that morality and truth are relative. If they are relative how can you condemn anyone for being arrogant? Calling someone "arrogant" is making a negative claim about a person and they know it.

Arrogant Christianity? MP3 Audio by Tom Gilson - Apologetics 315
Enhanced by Zemanta

26 comments:

  1. Anyone who's not at least agnostic about a supernatural claim is to a degree arrogant. Putting aside apologetics and other "rational" attempts to defend faith, the believe is usually forced to the Alamo of their own experiences in the end. So if one thinks their subjective experience trumps the majority of other peoples own subjective experiences, that is, by definition, arrogant.

    And calling someone arrogant, or suggesting that they show an attitude of superiority, is merely an observation, not that one can't make moral judgments while holding to a relativistic moral system.

    ReplyDelete
  2. So I guess that stating that your subjective opinion that prayer does not work and that there is no God does not trump mine that say its does? Good.

    Stating that a person is arrogant and believing something is wrong is making a moral judgment because you say they should not. A moral Judgment is defining a behavior as correct or judging it as wrong. If it's not wrong to teach people that there is a God and we are accountable to him, then you have much apologizing to do.

    Oh and is it possible to make a moral judgment while holding a relativistic moral system? How?

    ReplyDelete
  3. There have been double blind studies that show prayer has no effect. So it's not really my subjective opinion is it?

    ReplyDelete
  4. There have been studies that show prayer is effective. Therefore, yes your opinion is subjective.

    God does answer prayer. Your continued commenting is an answered prayer. Praise God!

    You still didn't answer my questions about moral value and how you justify yours.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sure, just move the "absolute" part down to either the human level or the societal level. For some reason you'll say that prevents an atheist from saying anything is wrong, but you are wrong about that and haven't, as far as I know, explained why that's the case.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Ryan

    One more time. If our society is the final authority on right and wrong, what do you when people disagree? Who is right? Who is wrong? Is it the strongest? Is it the smartest? How do you know? Why? If you can't answer these questions then you have no standard by which to judge moral values when there is conflict. For example (obvious one), The Nazis thought it was right to exterminate handicapped, people descended from Africans, and Jews. On what basis do you say they were wrong and the Allies had the right to stop them? If a man is attracted to little boys by what right can we tell him he is wrong to act on those feelings and stop him if morality is only relative?

    If you can tell me by what right we have to pass laws that prohibit anyone to do anything then you are right and I am wrong. I don't think you can do that. It would be really amusing to hear you try...or a train wreck. If morality is only relative, based only on society, then you would have to persuasively argue that society is right (at least most of the time) or that you know better than most people such that we should trust your opinion. Given that the views of society changes (250 years ago I counted as only 3/5 of a man in America) and that you are just as fallible as I am, my confidence level in relative morality consistently doing right by me aren't high at all.

    ReplyDelete
  7. If our society is the final authority on right and wrong, what do you when people disagree?

    You act like these disagreements don't occur everyday. What do we do when people disagree now? There are a number of process in place from legislation to police action.

    I don't think that you realize that the word "ultimate" does not mean that one cannot imagine something beyond it, just that it is the final link in a chain.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ryan, you call that a response? the point i made is exactly that there a disagreements every day about reality, I'm asking by what right are those laws enacted and should be followed? No one asked me about many of them. Why should I follow them? Why should anyone? I agree we should. But if morality all relative, and everyone is equal and no one is better than anyone else, what right do we have to force people to follow ethics they don't agree with? You still haven't addressed anything I brought up.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm asking by what right are those laws enacted and should be followed?

    No right, but the desire for an ordered society.

    Why should I follow them?

    I assume you want to be a productive member of society. But many people choose not to follow laws. It's a risk/reward decision for them.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Why should I care about being a productive member of society, as long as I get what i want? Why should you? Why should you do "good" things? I think "desire" isn't enough.

    ReplyDelete
  11. You don't have to. Plenty of people don't.

    ReplyDelete
  12. That is the point: they do. They, you, and me will have to give an account to the one who set up that absolute moral standard. If you think that there is no one we are accountable to then why enforce law and order...why not apologize to Stalin's communism or Hitler's Nazism for opposing them? Or to the confederate states for ending slavery? And let all the rapists, murderers, and thieves out of our prisons?

    ReplyDelete
  13. If you think that there is no one we are accountable...

    Go back and find where I said that... Not being accountable to a magical sky father does not mean we are not accountable to society, our families, friends, etc...

    ReplyDelete
  14. God say was are accountable not just to him but each other. I'm asking why do you think you are accountable to anyone given that you think some people do get away with behaving any kind of way they want? I want to know why you think you are accountable? How do they hold you accountable?

    ReplyDelete
  15. God say was are accountable not just to him but each other.

    No, a book claims that god says that.

    I'm asking why do you think you are accountable to anyone given that you think some people do get away with behaving any kind of way they want?

    3 million years of social evolution, upbringing, societal conditioning, etc... etc...

    ReplyDelete
  16. @ Ryan

    3 million years of social evolution, upbringing, societal conditioning, etc... etc...


    How do you know that is right as opposed to someone else's upbringing and conditioning?

    As a Christian I believe God has revealed Himself and his standard for us. You of course disagree but can't prove he did not and discount all the evidences that God does intervene in our realities.

    ReplyDelete
  17. How do you know that is right as opposed to someone else's upbringing and conditioning?

    "Know" isn't the right word. I "feel" that x is right or wrong. Someone else feels that they disagree. Luckily we have a society were we agree to collectively agree on the rules.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Why should anyone care about what you "feel about x"? Given the way the world works I would not say we have much of a consensus of what things are right and wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Given the way the world works I would not say we have much of a consensus of what things are right and wrong.

    There you go! Good for you!

    ReplyDelete
  20. Come'on, Ryan, take the next step: own up to the implications -

    If we can't come to a consensus for what is right and wrong and we cannot tell who is right and wrong, how do you answer people who challenge your worldview? What if someone stronger than you disagrees with you on how to raise your children? By What reason is it wrong for them to take them from you? Today you have law those laws, but if there is no absolute morality to which we are all accountable those laws could and will most likely change. What would you do if the laws goes against you?

    ReplyDelete
  21. own up to the implications

    The implications of a truth claim have nothing to do with the validity of that truth claim.

    ReplyDelete
  22. @Ryan


    The implications of a truth claim have nothing to do with the validity of that truth claim.


    So you agree that the points I raised are logically consistent with your world view. Thank you. Now all you have to do is to prove that your truth claim is correct.

    ReplyDelete
  23. They are consistent with how the world actually is, not my world view. I try not to have a world view.

    ReplyDelete
  24. They can't be consistent with how the world is because then you are saying people disagree with you are factually wrong about what is right an what is wrong. How you you know you are right?

    ReplyDelete
  25. People can be factually wrong. Haven't we been over the difference between moral claims and other claims? Yes we have, you were horribly wrong and tried very hard not to admit it, it was amusing...

    ReplyDelete
  26. @Ryan

    People can be factually wrong. Haven't we been over the difference between moral claims and other claims? Yes we have, you were horribly wrong and tried very hard not to admit it, it was amusing...

    What is truly pathetic are your attempts to dodge my questions without answering them. I'm not confusing moral claims and factual claims. I asked you about how do you know whose moral predilections are worthy to dominate conflicting ones. If morality is relative than right and wrong are nothing but preferences and predilections. Nice try to dodge the points you can't face, but it truly is sad.

    ReplyDelete