What I meant to say was: why isn’t the very existence of denominations in the world today a problem for apologists who claim to have a fixed and immovable morality supporting them?

My sister is a Christian, inasmuch as she believes in God, loves Christ, attends church at least weekly, sings in the choir, all that. She arrived at this position all by herself–our parents gave us no religious upbringing of any kind. She also believes in rights to assisted suicide, abortion on demand, and marriage for homosexuals. There might be more (oh, the separation of church and state), but any one of these would suffice (I think) to make the point that there is more than one way to look at the world even if you’re churchy.

I guess the short form is: there’s a lot of ways to be Christian. Christians know it, and so does everybody else. Wherefore the claim to absolute anything? Before you upbraid the supposedly relativistic mote in a skeptic’s eye, shouldn’t somebody attend to the big old apparently relativistic beam in the church’s eye? Did I get that reference right? I’d be so proud.

Seriously, though, is this an elephant in a room, or is this one of those things that only skeptics wonder about? I mean, the Christian world community hasn’t been reading from one script since at least the Reformation, right? Or am I missing something?

And don’t forget St Augustine (4th century) and St Aquinas (13th century?), if memory serves, both advocating torture and murder to deal with stubborn heretics. Christian morality, as you point out, has been evolving for millenia.

I’ve never understood Vox’s contention that even ‘moral’ atheists are guilty of being moral parasites. This isn’t true, but even if it was, who cares? Humans have progressed by building on the accomplishments of previous generations, not by continually having to reinvent the wheel. Speaking of which, one might accuse Vox of being a ‘technology parasite’ for using wheels invented by pagan cavemen.

Furthermore, don’t we generally appreciate ‘good’ actions emerging from plain old human sensibilities, more than those grudgingly performed under threat of harm? I mean, does ANYBODY appreciate love, or kindness, or sympathy directed towards them, if those things are motivated by fear? Such ‘morality’ smacks of artificiality to me, as I believe it would to almost anyone. Doesn’t the ideal of human interaction require the ingredient of authenticity, as opposed to a grudging sort of obedience to a barbaric Sky King?

Examined closely, the existence of what we call morality seems easily explained by the natural evolution of human sensibilities refined through human interaction. Meanwhile, the ‘top down’ theory is rife with logical problems and absurdities. If anything, gods are created to help enforce what we want anyway. Unfortunately, no religious system is perfect, having been produced by people with conflicting desires and motivations…both the internal kinds, as well as those which exist amongst the aggregate. But holding onto outmoded systems of superstition that fly in the face of modernity serves no one. Time to grow up.

I’ve found it easier to just work within the theist’s implicit definition of morality, and argue that, no, of course atheists don’t have “morality”, and we don’t need it. Why would anyone need “morality”?

This then prompts the theist to explain condescendingly that there must be SOME reason I haven’t been raping and murdering all morning.

To which I say, well, those things are inconsistent with my interests, and they offend my sense of empathy. I cooperate because it is in my best interest to cooperate. I want to live in a cooperative world where people look out for one another, so I contribute to that and I try to convince people it’s in their best interest too. Also, watching harm come to other is emotionally distressing to me because I have an innate sense of empathy. I like to avoid distress, so I try to prevent others from coming to harm.

This usually then tips off a, “well, where does your empathy come from”, to which I can say something like, empathic emotional responses would have a selection advantage to the extent that they facilitate cooperation, yada, yada, yada.

Yes, its a semantic trick, but by sticking to the argument on concrete terms and refusing to address morality in the abstract at all, one manages to avoid the mystical, essentialist baggage that theists insist on dumping into it. (Two other abstract concepts that often get the same treatment: “reason” and “love”).