<<(a) How would you answer a person who refuses to accept your
views of morality>>
I would first want to know if their beliefs allow for objective moral reality
or not. If they do, then we can reason together about specifics; if they do
not, we would have a different discussion, the one I've been trying to have
with Russell, and which has to do with the logical consequences of such a
foundation. I discussed those at length in my post "Consequences of
Materialist System."
<<(b) How would you answer a person who refuses to accept the
existence of a transcendent moral system>>
"Consequences of Materialist System."
<<(c) How would you answer a person who accepts a transcendent
moral system which is, according to your view, immoral.
For example, an Islamic terrorist.>>
The Islamic terrorist is analogous to the Christian slave trader, IMO. I would
reason from his own religious texts to attempt to convince him of his error.
IOW, the debate would be in the ballpark of objective moral reality, and thus
a conversation could actually take place.
<<There has been much talk of logic but it seems many are missing
an elementary point. There is a huge difference between the
actual existance of a transcendant moral code and a belief
in the existance of a transcendant moral code.>>
This is true in any discussion of religious truth. The key for me is logical
coherence from presuppositions. In my view, that defeats the materialist, as
Craig points out in my post.
<<It also is unfortunate that there has been a significant divergence
from the original point of this thread, which is that the theory
of evolution is not responsible for racism, the holocaust etc.
As no one has given any rational arguments as to why the theory
of evolution should be blamed for such things I will consider
that phase of the discussion resolved.
Historically, Christian doctrines have been twisted by many in
an attempt to make Christians guilty of all sorts of evil.
Thus I would think that Christians, of all people, would
oppose the application of such tactics to others. Instead
of opposing such practices we instigate them and relish each
twist of the knife.>>
I answered this early on. I explained the difference between the causal
argument (with which I disagree) and the justification argument (which I think
holds). I also explained that the Christian view has the ability to reform
itself, as indeed it has, historically. The materialist view CANNOT. That is
where the divergence came, and it was an imporant path to explore.
Jim