P. John on V. Tech
Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2007 4:47 pm
Free FM no longer exists, at least where I live. Which means, Adam Corolla and Tom Leykis are no longer there to uplift me. Tired music for a while, nah. Now, I'm back to listening to the preachers from Calvary chapel. Entertaining, I'll admit, but unable to really provide any insights on life as Corolla and Leykis.
His morning sermon brought up the V. Tech tragedy. He says, people ask, "Why? Why do people do this?"
His answer was, "Why not?" If all we are is evolved animals, then why not?
Now pastor John is a complete dumb ass. But I admit even normal people have a hard time wrapping their heads around this one. Grounding morals is not an easy. But what people tend not to see is that, whatever problems a godless world has with morals aren't really fixed by adding a God.
First of all, why would we expect if there is a God, that he give us that particular moral? He could have just as easily commanded the rogue student to do what he did. Doesn't he inspire Al Queda to do similar things on a daily basis?
The normative problem for Christians would be to show us what's right and wrong in some kind of interesting way that the non-Christian simply can't do. For instance, they can appeal to their intuitions, and say those are God inspired, but the atheist can say they have the same intuitions built by evolution. And the atheists position is superier since he can give realistic accounts of why those intuitions would evolve - cooperative game theory etc..The Christian can turn to scripture, but how many Christians can make a list of 50 or 60 tough ethical questions and genuinely find a clear answer to each that with little dispute, their particular sect would back up? Remember Mormons, as FAIR tells us, Mormonism doesn't have any systematic theology. So your case is about as bad as it possibly could get for defining morals.
The metaethical problem would be to take up how any ethics can be justified. But I don't think we even need to press this issue if Christians can't even make good on explaining, or at least listing in a consistent way, the stuff God has told us to do.
His morning sermon brought up the V. Tech tragedy. He says, people ask, "Why? Why do people do this?"
His answer was, "Why not?" If all we are is evolved animals, then why not?
Now pastor John is a complete dumb ass. But I admit even normal people have a hard time wrapping their heads around this one. Grounding morals is not an easy. But what people tend not to see is that, whatever problems a godless world has with morals aren't really fixed by adding a God.
First of all, why would we expect if there is a God, that he give us that particular moral? He could have just as easily commanded the rogue student to do what he did. Doesn't he inspire Al Queda to do similar things on a daily basis?
The normative problem for Christians would be to show us what's right and wrong in some kind of interesting way that the non-Christian simply can't do. For instance, they can appeal to their intuitions, and say those are God inspired, but the atheist can say they have the same intuitions built by evolution. And the atheists position is superier since he can give realistic accounts of why those intuitions would evolve - cooperative game theory etc..The Christian can turn to scripture, but how many Christians can make a list of 50 or 60 tough ethical questions and genuinely find a clear answer to each that with little dispute, their particular sect would back up? Remember Mormons, as FAIR tells us, Mormonism doesn't have any systematic theology. So your case is about as bad as it possibly could get for defining morals.
The metaethical problem would be to take up how any ethics can be justified. But I don't think we even need to press this issue if Christians can't even make good on explaining, or at least listing in a consistent way, the stuff God has told us to do.