John Loftus has posted the following new video from YouTuber Nonstampcollector regarding Christianity and objective morality. He takes an interesting
Atheist viewpoint on the debate. His conclusions are fully warranting a FacePalm but his starting premise has several important points. Here's the video.
Nonstampcollector starts out making it clear that he doesn't agree with the Moral
arguments for the existence of God, but he also clearly puts his finger on the problem atheists have with defeating Dr
William Lane Craig. As long as one can demonstrate the rationality of believing that a god(s) exist, atheism by definition is on shaky ground. Dr Craig usually keeps his debates right there putting his opponents on the defensive and trying to disprove the Bible to show that the God of Christianity does not exist - which is usually not the topic of the debate. It's undeniable and gives Dr. Craig the option of not defending the Bible because his arguments are not dependent on it. Unfortunately, this means that Dr Craig can only argue for general theism and his savvy opponents like
Christopher Hitchens are able to point this out. Most of his opponents don't seem able to press him on that, but there have been a few Christians and Atheists alike whom have pointed this out.
Nonstampcollector, to his credit and Dr Sam Harris' detriment, also points this out. Even if you grant the premises that Dr. Craig enumerated in Nonstampcollector's video (and I do), you can't just whiz-bam-come-up-with the God of the Bible. You still have to explain how the Bible reveals God's character and ultimate moral law-giver. Dr Harris, during his debate with Dr Craig, unsuccessfully tries to raise this objection given his skill in interpreting the Bible but Dr Craig did not go for it because it was out of bounds of the debate. Nonstampcollector and atheists who are sophisticated enough to make such objections try to paint theists who don't defend the validity of Bible as not doing so because the Bible is undefendable. I think that this is where the Facepalm comes in.
One of Nonstampcollector's objections is that it's wrong to tell unbelievers that without God they don't know what is moral and what isn't. However I think we need to ask "What does objective morality mean?" Here is the definition I will be using: Objective Morality is a thought or action that is correct or wrong irregardless of what people think or feel about it. Nonstampcollector presents several scriptures and then quotes Dr Craig that God's commandments must reflect his character and that they must be "holy" and "Loving". Nonstampcollector thinks that we can just ignore the "holy" part because it means nothing outside of made-up religion. But before we go on, we have to define what these terms mean. I'm not content with just ignoring what "holy". Given that "holy" means nothing to an atheist, let me help him out. Holy means pure, just, perfect, set apart, and special. It speaks to a standard of perfection that cannot coexist with impurity. Also "Love" is not milk-toast, touchy, feel-ly, emotional lip service our society gives lip service to. No. "Love" is the courage to decide to do what's best for others despite it being inconvenient. It's giving what is needed not just what is desired. Without the
holiness of God, the love has no foundation or context. It's because of Love that the standard of holiness is set and upheld. Without that, none of
the Bible makes sense.
Rather than respond to each of the scriptures that Nonstampcollector raises, I'm just going to generally respond to his overall argument. Do the scriptures that he raised illustrate objective moral values that we should embrace as ethical today? YES! Whenever, most Christians point out that application of those ethics is dependent on circumstances the objection is raised that it makes
Biblical morality relativistic. Not at all. Why should everyone of the laws binding on an Israelite living 4000 years ago be binding on me today in the same way? Do all the traffic laws apply to me when I am a pedestrian as when I am driving in my car? No. If anyone would like to discuss specific scriptures and ask how they apply to us today, I'd be happy to but for now let's get to the meat of the argument. I already hear the objection: When it comes to the Bible the stakes are much higher because those who disobey are going to hell if Christians are right! The Bible is really clear, no one can keep the law perfectly and without Jesus Christ you are going to hell no matter which commandments you fail to keep or succeed in keeping. That is where Holy and loving comes in. Sin must be punished. Good works don't save you. Jesus saved us so that we can perform good works. Yes, atheists do good things but that's not apart from God on their own. Credit goes to God for all the good we do. Honestly, deep down, we all know we do more bad than good, according to the standards set in the Bible. Why should you get away with that? The only way we can escape that is set up our own standard for morality. That is what Sam Harris and Nonstampcollector and all people do if you don't submit yourself to God.
I was listening to what Nonstampcollector probably isn't even aware what he's saying. I hear it all the time from everyone: "I'm not really that bad. I haven't done anything worthy of being sent to hell for. There are other people far more deserving of hell than I." Most
Americans would agree that
Osama Bin Laden deserves to go to hell. They think Anders Behring Breivik should burn there too. And they just know that men who piloted the planes into the World Trade towers and the Pentagon ten years ago. They also think rapist and child molesters are so evil they couldn't possibly go anywhere else. And we just know Hitler's got a spot there if such a place exist. In my mind this begs a question: why? Why do they deserve to go hell and you don't? I know what some people would say: "I'm a good person. I try to help others and I haven't killed anyone." Here's the problem with the Bible: It says that if you lust after another person, its no different than having done the act. If you bad-mouthed someone, it's no better than having killed them. In short the Bible very clearly tells us that none of are less deserving of hell than anyone else.
Nonstampcollector has a problem with many of the punishments given in the Bible for what he thinks are minor infraction or not wrong in the first place. This demonstrates that without God we wouldn't know what is right and wrong. I agree that pre-marital sex does not seem like it should be considered a capital offense, but the fact that it was to God in Ancient Israel shows me how wrong I am and how bad the offense is. Witchcraft is the same. There are many other examples. Is being a false prophet really that bad - deserving death? Yes! Just because we don't understand or agree that an act is immoral or evil does not matter. Is something right or wrong just because God said so? Yup. Yes, that's right. I said it. Equating actions throughout time and epochs is dangerous and misses key points. For example, is it wrong to kill a man who is doing nothing to harm you? Yes, that is murder. Is it wrong to kill a man who trying to kill you? No. Morality is objective but again application of those values are not.
Here is why the video deserves a Facepalm: Nonstampcollector fails to understand the standards by which he judges whether or not the God of the Bible is moral. He doesn't know what "Holy and loving" are and none of us do apart from God revealing it to us in relationship with Him. If anyone has specific scriptures they would like to discuss, even the ones that Nonstampcollector raised, to see why they are loving, I'd be happy to discuss it. The only way to be in right relationship with our creator who's character is the basis of objective moral value is through the one sent to redeem us from sin and death - Jesus Christ - and then you can make the leap from bald theism to personally knowing the one who exists.
Debunking Christianity: Objective Morality vs. Christianity, by Non-Stamp Collector
