Re: ICR and its slurs (summary reflections)

Russell Stewart (diamond@rt66.com)
Fri, 30 May 1997 16:38:18 -0600

At 12:09 PM 5/30/97 EDT, you wrote:
>Brian D. Harper has some nice summary reflections:
>
><<Now, I must say that this is really really bad news (pun intended)
>and would lead me to utter despair. For I know that I stand
>condemned already before a God like this with no hope. And what
>motivation have I to follow the moral commands of this God,
>knowing myself to be condemned already? I know I cannot plead
>with such a God by saying I'm moral most of the time. This would
>be like telling the traffic cop that I don't run red lights
>most of the time. And I cannot promise this God that I'll obey
>his laws in the future, now that I'm aware of them, because I
>know that I cannot obey them. So, I conclude that its hopeless.
>Eat drink and be merry, for tommorrow we burn.>>
>
>This is, of course, the precise reason why grace is the overwhelming gift that
>it is, and why it should lead us not only to the foot of the Cross but to
>moral action as well. This is the teaching of Titus 2:11-15.

But your definition of "moral action" may not agree with another Christian's
definition of such. And, to put it in your terms, you are powerless to mount
an effective argument against someone who disagrees with you on this, since
the existence and motivations of God are issues that cannot be logically
proven (or at least, nobody's found a way yet).

><<Before I blather on too much let's see if we can agree on our
>terminology. Do you believe that there is a connection between
>evolution as a science and racism? If so, for what reason?>>
>
>The "science of evolution" CAN have consequences, and when one of those is
>justification for, e.g., racism,

Which it isn't -- at least, not anymore than Christian justification for
racism is a consequence of Christianity,

>you have a philosophy that may be termed
>evolutionISM--all things assessed through the filter of materialist
>presuppositions. But one is NOT compelled to this if one holds to
>supra-natural view of evolution.

Instead, one is compelled to an entirely different subjective moral
standard. One that can be interpreted to support almost any point of
view.

><<But this employs a circular argument. It is true that you, I and the
>Islamic terrorist would agree that there is only one transcendent
>moral system, however, you are using the tenets of yours (by claiming
>an immoral application) to exclude his. He could do likewise.>>
>
>It's not really circular. The argument does not pit tenet against tenet.
>Indeed, one would use the holy text of Islam in an attempt at moral reasoning
>with the terrorist.

And one would fail completely in doing so, since religious texts are so
subjective, so confusing, and so riddled with inconsistencies that they
can be used to support a wide variety of different views.

>In fact, this is being done NOW in the Islamic world, with
>beneficial results. The recent election in Iran is one sign.

I'll be very surprised if this puts a stop to terrorism.

>The key is that the moral monists have the syntax to communicate about
>objective values,

But they all have their own different definition of what those objective
values really are.

>even though they may end up disagreeing. The materialists do
>not have such moral syntax.

And the lack of them obviously hasn't hurt us.

_____________________________________________________________
| Russell Stewart |
| http://www.rt66.com/diamond/ |
|_____________________________________________________________|
| Albuquerque, New Mexico | diamond@rt66.com |
|_____________________________|_______________________________|

2 + 2 = 5, for very large values of 2.