www.winteryknight.com

Wintery Knight #wingnut #fundie #dunning-kruger winteryknight.com

Moral relativism is the view that moral values and moral duties do not exist in reality, but only exist as opinions in people’s minds. When you ask a moral relativist where the belief that stealing is wrong comes from, he may tell you that it is his opinion, or that it is the opinion of most people in his society. But he cannot tell you that stealing is wrong independent of what people think, because morality (on moral relativism) is just personal preference.

So what’s wrong with it?

I found this list of the seven flaws of moral relativism at the Salvo magazine web site.


Moral relativists can’t accuse others of wrongdoing.
Relativists can’t complain about the problem of evil.
Relativists can’t place blame or accept praise.
Relativists can’t make charges of unfairness or injustice.
Relativists can’t improve their morality.
Relativists can’t hold meaningful moral discussions.
Relativists can’t promote the obligation of tolerance.
<...>
I sometimes get flack from atheists who complain that I don’t let them make any moral statements without asking them first to ground morality on their worldview. And that’s because on atheism morality IS NOT rationally grounded, so they can’t answer. In an accidental universe, you can only describe people’s personal preferences or social customs, that vary by time and place. The answer is always going to be “it depends”. It depends on the person who is speaking because it’s a subjective claim, not an objective claim. There is no objective way we ought to behave.
<...>
Without a designer of the universe, the question of how we ought to act is decided by people in different times and different places. It’s arbitrary and variable, and therefore it doesn’t do the job of prescribing behavior authoritatively. It’s very important not to get involved in any serious endeavor with another person or persons if they don’t have a sense of right and wrong being absolute and fixed. A belief in objective moral values is a necessary pre-requisite for integrity.

William Lane Craig #fundie winteryknight.com

The central problem of the Penal Theory is, as you point out, understanding how punishing a person other than the perpetrator of the wrong can meet the demands of justice. Indeed, we might even say that it would be wrong to punish some innocent person for the crimes I commit!
It seems to me, however, that in other aspects of human life we do recognize this practice. I remember once sharing the Gospel with a businessman. When I explained that Christ had died to pay the penalty for our sins, he responded, “Oh, yes, that’s imputation.” I was stunned, as I never expected this theological concept to be familiar to this non-Christian businessman. When I asked him how he came to be familiar with this idea, he replied, “Oh, we use imputation all the time in the insurance business.” He explained to me that certain sorts of insurance policy are written so that, for example, if someone else drives my car and gets in an accident, the responsibility is imputed to me rather than to the driver. Even though the driver behaved recklessly, I am the one held liable; it is just as if I had done it.
Now this is parallel to substitutionary atonement. Normally I would be liable for the misdeeds I have done. But through my faith in Christ, I am, as it were, covered by his divine insurance policy, whereby he assumes the liability for my actions. My sin is imputed to him, and he pays its penalty. The demands of justice are fulfilled, just as they are in mundane affairs in which someone pays the penalty for something imputed to him. This is as literal a transaction as those that transpire regularly in the insurance industry.

WorldGoneCrazy #fundie winteryknight.com

(On the "flaws" of moral relativism):

When you get into a discussion with an atheist on this subject, they invariably sneak objective morality into their replies. It is usually pretty obvious when they use phrases like “right” or “wrong” in a clearly objective sense.

When you present the Moral Argument for the existence of God, the atheist will invariably engage in the Atheist Shuffle – bouncing back and forth between denying Premise 1 or Premise 2. It can be quite frustrating.

“So, now you believe in objective morality?”
“No, morality is relative.”
“But, you just said that what Hitler did to the Jews was wrong, objectively wrong, right?”
“Yes.” :-)

What it REALLY comes down to is this: atheists reserve relative morality for their OWN actions while affirming objective morality for the actions of others. Very convenient.

pg #fundie winteryknight.com

Atheists are able to adhere to the view and practice of “do unto others.” They just don’t have any (known) recourse for their mistakes, which can make them throw up their hands in despair. Many times they find their values in the discoveries of Science — and science eventually confirms what the Bible said all along, since the Bible is the Truth, for instance in regard to the permanent effects of oxytocin (released during sex) on the brain: it has now been confirmed scientifically through studies of the brain that we only truly can bond with one individual, after that, the adhesive or velcro of intimacy starts to wear off. I am seeing a psychologist who is an atheist, and it works for me. He is more honest and empathetic than a lot of Christians. We do however deal only in the “here and now”. It is more a life coaching kind of thing than “tell me about your mother,” which is why it works for me, I think. Also, I did let him know up front that I would like to get through the course of therapy with my Faith intact, so he tip toes around that topic and my values with respect and gives it a lot of space.