<

The Childish Faith of John Lennox

Not a great defense of Christianity (apologetics)Childish? Childlike? You tell me.

I’ll admit to being a bit awed by an Oxford mathematics professor weighing in on Christianity. John Lennox makes a good impression. He’s a clean-shaven Irish Santa Claus with three doctorates. A nice guy with a formidable intellect and much practice as a public speaker—that’s an impressive package.

I heard him speak in Seattle a couple of years ago. Unfortunately, I wasn’t much impressed then … but perhaps I missed something. I recently listened to an hour-long interview, mostly on the Problem of Evil, which only solidified my unfavorable opinion.

I summarize his argument in bold below. Let me encourage both Christian and atheist readers to pause with each salvo to see what they think. Is the Christian point a strong one? What is the best atheist response? Is there something missing from either side here?

Atheists whine about the Crusades and the Inquisition, but why don’t they take seriously the violence and harm caused by atheist regimes like those of Stalin and Mao?

Because the atheism was a consequence of the actual problem, that these regimes were dictatorships. Stalin was an atheist because he was a dictator. He wasn’t a dictator because he was an atheist!

Atheism was central to the Soviet Union’s policy. After all, Marx said that religion was the opium of the people.  

Sure, atheism was central. Churches had to be shut down because they competed for power. Atheism was simply a consequence of the dictatorship; Stalin didn’t do damage in the name of atheism.

As for “religion is the opium of the people,” that was a compliment! Opium is medicine, remember? Here is Marx in context:

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

Marx wasn’t saying that religion dulled the senses of people; rather, he was saying that in a society with terrible conditions, it provides solace. His complaint was simply that religion could do no more than address a symptom, leaving the underlying problem untouched.

Atheists complain about the evil that God allows, but by what standard do they judge something as evil? If there is no god, good and evil are just a matter of opinion. There’s no rational justification for moral concepts if you abolish God.

I don’t reject the idea of morality and evil; I reject the idea of absolute morality or evil. Look in the dictionary—the definitions don’t assume absolute or objective grounding. Imagine that morality is absolute if you want, but don’t pretend that the dictionary backs you up.

We all believe in absolute values; we all acknowledge a standard outside ourselves. Atheists prove this when they argue for right and wrong. For example, we all agree that baby torture is wrong.

We don’t have absolute values; we have shared values. That’s not surprising since we’re all the same species. We agree that baby torture is wrong because we have the same moral instinct.

Atheists can be moral, but they can’t justify morality.

The natural explanation explains what we see without relying on anything supernatural. Morality has an instinctive part (from evolution) and a social part (from society).

The instinctive part explains the certainty we have about fundamental moral rights and wrongs and explains why these are shared across societies. We even see elements of morality in other primates.

The social part changes with time and place. For example, slavery is obviously wrong in the West now, but it wasn’t a problem in centuries past. Some aspects of morality vary greatly by society—honor, for example.

Atheists can’t explain where absolute morals come from.

Agreed. Neither can you. I keep hearing this confusion of shared morals with absolute morals. And I keep seeing no evidence for the remarkable claim that morality is grounded outside humans.

By rejecting God, in what sense has the atheist solved the Problem of Evil?

Do you not know what the Problem of Evil is? It asks: How can an all-good God allow evil? Drop the idea of a god, and the problem vanishes. Completely.

But evil and pain haven’t gone away.

Yes, that’s true. You’ve got a fundamental contradiction with the Problem of Evil that attacks the very foundation of your religion, but from an atheist standpoint, there is no problem.

Note that you’ve also gotten rid of all hope.

How childish are you? You care about solace but not truth? I don’t know about you, but I’m looking for the truth. The pleasantness of a doctrine doesn’t change how I evaluate its truth. “The simple believe anything, but the prudent give thought to their steps” (Proverbs 14:15). Don’t we want to be prudent?

Sure, God could’ve made us so we wouldn’t do bad things, but we’d be robots without free will.

So you think God is a champion of free will? When victims of murder or rape have their free will violated, God doesn’t step in to do anything about it. Why then imagine that he’s deliberately not acting so that the free will of the criminal is allowed?

Is there free will in heaven? There must be if free will is so important. Then why isn’t heaven full of evil just like the earth is? Perhaps the beings in heaven are enlightened, and they know how to use free will properly. They would simply not be tempted to do bad things.

If this enlightenment is the instruction manual to make free will work, why didn’t God give it to us?

(Read part 2 here.)

The universe we observe has
precisely the properties we should expect
if there is, at bottom,
no design, no purpose, no evil and no good,
nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
— Richard Dawkins

Photo credit: JohnLennox.org

About Bob Seidensticker
  • Mick

    At the start of any discussion with a Christian, I always ask them to describe god (otherwise we won’t know what we are talking about). I ask more questions about the attributes they assign to god and it’s not long before they are explaining that god is beyond the understanding of mere mortals (so they don’t know what they are talking about).

    Only trouble with this routine is that you rarely get to discuss the problem of evil, because the Christian has already performed a very pretty flounce.

  • Composer 99

    From the OP:

    Atheists whine about the Crusades and the Inquisition, but why don’t they take seriously the violence and harm caused by atheist regimes like those of Stalin and Mao? [Emphasis original]

    Because the atheism was a consequence of the actual problem, that these regimes were dictatorships. Stalin was an atheist because he was a dictator. He wasn’t a dictator because he was an atheist!

    As far as I can see, unlike the violence of the Crusades, or the Inquisition, which were obviously religiously-inspired, it does not appear to be the case that the official atheism of the USSR or People’s Republic of China had anything to do with inspiring their violence, save for violence against the religious for being religious (as compared to, say, being any number of other suspect categories of person).

  • Highlander

    “Note that you’ve also gotten rid of all hope.”
    Nonsense, hope is the desire for a situation in the present to have an advantageous outcome in the future. The future relentlessly marches its way to the past, and people, regardless of whether there is a god, will continue to desire certain outcomes over others. The only difference is without a god people might actually go out and try to make the outcome for themselves rather than just talking to their imaginary friend about it.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” – George Bernard Shaw

  • RichardSRussell

    Man, this guy should stick to the field in which he has some expertise. This is just pathetic.

    BTW, re “We agree that baby torture is wrong because we have the same moral instinct.” Baby torturers don’t agree it’s wrong. That’s because they don’t share that common moral value — further evidence that morality isn’t absolute but rather 100% a matter of opinion.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/ BobSeidensticker

      Richard: Agreed on the torture. I phrased it definitely because he did. I suspect that he would agree that there are outliers, but that wasn’t central to either his or my argument.

    • Castilliano

      Pathetic to people who read atheist blogs rich with healthy debate.
      Highly functional arguments to people in the real world who haven’t heard them before or don’t question them.

      Thank you, Bob, this serves as a primer for basic atheism defense.
      I’ve seen a lot of these arguments served up in comment threads and even in university debates or TV interviews. Your smooth handling of them serves as a great example to us. I’ll probably reread this just to smooth out my own replies.

      Oh, and I wouldn’t call the guy childish, and definitely not child-like. The comments are smart attempts, just poorly thought out, likely due to never having faced challenge.
      I’d call them ignorant, simple, and/or undeveloped.

      Cheers, JMK

      • MNb

        “just poorly thought out”

        Still this is odd for a well-trained mathematician. Philosophical logic is not that different from mathematical logic. In fact math is also a language.

        • Castilliano

          True.

          He’s not even trying. He’s just accepting the ‘theorems’, exploring neither the origins nor the implications.
          He’s a brainwashed disciple speaking phrases in a language he’s not fluent in. Or he’s just lazy and sloppy because that’s worked so far. Likely, he gets acclaim for this rhetoric from his peers.
          It’d be interesting if he responded…after thinking that is.

        • adamaphar

          Cue ad hominem.

      • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/ BobSeidensticker

        Thank you, Bob, this serves as a primer for basic atheism defense.

        :-) 

  • RichardSRussell

    Lennox argues “Sure, God could’ve made us so we wouldn’t do bad things, but we’d be robots without free will.”

    That’s like arguing “It can’t be raining outside, because then I’d get wet.”

    Just because you don’t happen to like a particular consequence doesn’t mean that the cause of that consequence magically disappears.

    Besides, maybe we are robots without free will. How would you know?

  • Kodie

    Sure, God could’ve made us so we wouldn’t do bad things, but we’d be robots without free will.

    Why always robots?

    • http://profiles.google.com/david.mike.simon David Simon

      I wanna be a robot. Robots are awesome.

    • smrnda

      Technically, the word comes from Czech and just means ‘worker’ so, unless you are a trust fund kid, you are probably already a robot.

      • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/ BobSeidensticker

        smrnda:

        Good point. Maybe it’s actually Rossum who is the Creator.

  • http://avoiceinthewilderness-mcc1789.blogspot.com/ Michael

    Atheists whine about the Crusades and the Inquisition, but why don’t they take seriously the violence and harm caused by atheist regimes like those of Stalin and Mao?

    Because the atheism was a consequence of the actual problem, that these regimes were dictatorships. Stalin was an atheist because he was a dictator. He wasn’t a dictator because he was an atheist!

    I think atheists have to do better on the “godless communists” issue. Stalin was an atheist before he became dictator of the USSR-he wasn’t an atheist because he was a dictator, he was an atheist because he was a Marxist. Prior to that, he was a seminary student. Atheism was one part of Marxist ideology. And yes, he wasn’t a dictator because he was an atheist-he was a dictator because he had the unique personality traits for it, happened to be part of a movement which offered that opportunity, etc. Your response does not make sense to me I’m afraid. I believe that you mean to say the violence was because the regimes were dictatorships. Some, at least, was a consequence of atheist views held by the regimes, though many people were murdered for difference pretexts. Yes, damage was done in the name of atheism-shutting down churches, which you mention, along with persecution of believers and official denigration of belief. This was because, as you touch upon, Marxists believed that religion was not only false, but dangerous, and kept the oppressed proletariat mollified-they were promised “pie in the sky” when they died. Marx expected that once socialism was in place, religion would fade away. However, this did not happen quickly enough for the Marxist regimes, so they demolished churches and persecuted believers in an effort to hasten it. This did not work, of course. Marxist socialism failed to give the comfort Marx felt necessary to rid them of religious beliefs. On the other hand, in Scandinavia, where democratic socialism has been in place for many decades, religious belief is very low. Japan also has this. It’s inaccurate and unfair to simply pick up atheism from communist regimes and blame everything on that, when this was just one part of a larger ideology. This is not any more accurate or fair that portraying the Inquisition to represent all Christians, even ones they persecuted (since the communist regimes persecuted atheist dissidents also, by way of analogy). However, if we make such arguments to consequences, or comparisons, it leaves the rebuttal open. Crimes have been done in the name of atheism, though far less than religion, which has dominated all of history until recently. Totalitarianism is not a necessary consequence of atheism, though, and we should focus on showing that majority atheist societies (where the population voluntarily disbelieves, as opposed to ones such as the Soviet Union in which the ruling elite were atheists, while the rest had that view imposed upon them) are no worse and in many ways better than religious ones. However, denying that atheists have committed atrocities, in the name of atheism (though it still represents a small part of history only) is erroneous.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/ BobSeidensticker

      Michael:

      Crimes have been done in the name of atheism

      Expand on this.

      There’s no holy book or deity in whose name to do violence. I don’t see any violence as a consequence of atheism. “I have no god belief,” therefore … what?

      If you’re dropping any sort of logical connection, then, sure, I can imagine anything being done in the name of anything. “I like yellow socks, therefore you must die!” for example. But as a logical consequence, I see lack of god belief implying nothing.

      • http://avoiceinthewilderness-mcc1789.blogspot.com/ Michael

        True, there’s no holy book. However, people can still do violence in the name of an idea, especially an ideology. In this case as I said it was as part of Marxism. Lack of God does not by itself imply any particular stance, true. In this case, though, a strong anti-theism was one consequence. The Spanish Revolution, for instance, saw many churches demolished or converted to other uses, along with religious icons stripped from villages, along with thousands of clergy deliberately targeted and killed. It was done by groups that, unlike people today, could be fairly named “militant” atheists (i.e. they were in fact armed and militarily aggressive).

        • http://twitter.com/ChardHollis Richard Hollis

          “True, there’s no holy book. However, people can still do violence in the name of an idea, especially an ideology.”

          Does atheism even count as an ideology? It is simply a lack of belief in something specific – gods. Is a lack of belief in Santa an ideology? Is a lack of belief in the Easter Bunny an ideology? Is the lack of belief in dragons an ideology?

          Just like a lack of belief in Santa, a lack of belief in gods does not compel any particular behaviour. Atheism does not compel atheists to do anything. This is in direct contrast with religious faith, which DOES compel behaviour, from prayer and regular church attendance, to blasphemy laws and burning heretics.

          It can be argued that religion compels loving, compassionate deeds from its followers. But it is a fact of history that it has compelled many atrocities as well. And because it has actively compelled such behaviour, religion is accountable for those atrocities in a way that atheism simply is not.

        • http://avoiceinthewilderness-mcc1789.blogspot.com/ Michael

          By itself atheism doesn’t count as an ideology, but Marxism does. Atheist was part of it. I agree, lack of belief does not compel any particular behavior. In this case, when part of a larger ideology, it did lead to certain behavior. Theism, by itself, doesn’t necessarily compel any behavior either. In organized religion, though, it does. Like secular ideologies, the behavior can be violent, or not, depending on its nature.

        • http://twitter.com/ChardHollis Richard Hollis

          Atheism is not accountable for Marxism. Or for Communism. Or for any other political or philosophical movements.

          It is a very common theist tactic to insist atheism is responsible for the regimes of Stalin and Mao, obviously hoping to taint by association. Just as John Lennox is trying to do here. But it doesn’t wash. You can no more attribute deeds to ‘a lack of belief in gods’ than you can to ‘a lack of belief in Santa’, or dragons, or fairies.

          “Theism, by itself, doesn’t necessarily compel any behavior either.”

          Well, maybe not deism. But I cannot think of a single other (theistic) religion that fails to not only claim that gods exist, but also instructs us on who those gods are and what they want from us and how we should behave to please them.

          “In organized religion, though, it does.”

          Which is precisely why we can expect certain organised religions to be accountable for certain atrocities in history, such as the crusades, the inquisition, and terrorist bombings. We cannot hold atheism to a similar account.

        • http://avoiceinthewilderness-mcc1789.blogspot.com/ Michael

          I don’t hold atheism as a whole accountable for any political movements, but on the other hand, to say that it was not involved, for some cases at least, is to me fallacious. It’s true theism in most cases goes along with other beliefs. In many cases though other beliefs go along with or follow from the non-belief of atheism. This may be simply opposition to religious intrusion into the public sphere, or privileges granted to religions. I hold both these views myself. In the most rare, extreme historical cases, it was the active desire that religion itself be abolished, by force if necessary. Most religions are very diverse in teaching, even within themselves. I do not think we can hold Quakers, for instance, to account for the Inquisition. Likewise, modern humanist atheists bear no responsibility in the attacks on religious people by Marxist regimes. Both cases are fallacious guilty by association.

    • RichardSRussell

      There’s no doubt that a great many of Josef Stalin’s victims were killed intentionally, for a variety of reasons. Most of the dead, tho, perished not as a result of intent but thru simple incompetence. (That is, it was more neglect than abuse.) Millions starved to death due to the insane (and totally unscientific) policies of Stalin’s ag minister, Trofim D. Lysenko. More died during forced relocations and general industrial incompetence that led to lack of protection from the brutal Russian winters. And, since the Soviet Union was officially an atheistic, Communistic country, a good many of those who died were atheists and Communists.

      In general, if you’re killing people because of some religious or political or racial or tribal animus, you try to avoid killing those who share your own. Stalin just didn’t give a shit.

      • http://avoiceinthewilderness-mcc1789.blogspot.com/ Michael

        You’re very right on all of the above. Some of those killed intentionally, though, were done so do to them being religious. Many of the dead, as I noted, were atheists and communists.

        • Greg G.

          Some of those killed intentionally, though, were done so due to them being religious. 

          Some of those killed may have opposed Stalin for religious reasons but I expect they were killed because they opposed him, not because they opposed him for religious reasons. I doubt he considered the legitimacy of a person’s reason for opposition when considering whether to eliminate them.

        • http://avoiceinthewilderness-mcc1789.blogspot.com/ Michael

          Yes, but I’m referring to cases in which people were targeted even if they didn’t openly oppose him.

        • Greg G.

          Collateral damage?

        • http://avoiceinthewilderness-mcc1789.blogspot.com/ Michael

          Rooting out people deemed likely dissidents, whether or not they had actually done anything to resist.

        • http://avoiceinthewilderness-mcc1789.blogspot.com/ Michael

          No doubt.

        • Kodie

          One question to clarify this recurring misapprehension – many theists are made to believe that atheism is borne out of a desire to be #1 instead of humbling oneself at #2, just one below god: how do you distinguish a person who is an atheist who apparently had that desire and achieved dictatorship from the rest of us? My answer is that we’re all some kind of animal. There is no best animal, we just all have a niche, and we all like to (generally) live and not go extinct. Our niche is intelligence and we use tools and rationality to innovate our environment to serve ourselves, with some general consciousness of other people and other animals (unless perverted by belief in god).

          Another question to clarify this recurring misapprehension – why is it not ok for a person to do it, and immediately and instinctively labeled a travesty, but when god does it, it’s called love? I don’t even blame Marxism, I blame fanaticism. Stalin was jealous that anyone would have a leader over him. I’m not sure of a Marxist government insisting itself upon others to agree upon pain of death. Marxism, in essence, wants people to be free. Killing them to enforce this policy doesn’t seem to line up with Marxism itself. Maybe Marxism fails in practice, but that’s not even to say it’s atheism coming from a Marxist ideal that caused the failure. Stalin was a jealous, incompetent, self-serving human being, and so why is that terrible? It’s only terrible from the point of view who think people should not be so uppity as to assume tyranny when that’s god’s domain. They seem to be relatively ok when someone admits to serving god instead. If you are a dictator serving god, whatever you did was just whatever you received instructions to do – see: the bible genocides. EDIT: I didn’t mean to imply that he wasn’t that bad, all considered. Stalin was pathologically bad. Atheism didn’t make him bad – wanting to be “god” to his people probably did make him bad. Why is the assumption that, because Stalin wanted to be god to his people, that that came from atheism, or that’s an example of what atheists really want and pursue?

    • MNb

      Bertrand Russell already pointed out the religious aspects of marxism in his History of Western Philosophy. Stalin may have been an atheist, he surely understood the power of deification and did not mind to be worshipped as if he were a god. The same for Mao.
      I recommend to read a few things about juche, the ideology of North-Korea. It’s religiosity – especially about the bond between the leader and the people – is striking.

      • http://avoiceinthewilderness-mcc1789.blogspot.com/ Michael

        Yes, I’m well aware of the parallels. I’m not sure Marxism qualifies as a religion, however, though its “historical dialectic” is certainly near-supernatural (in Hegel’s original version, it was “the will of God” explicitly). True, Stalin, Mao and the Kim family of Korea have been treated in a manner similar to religious worship (in the last case with blatantly supernatural aspects). I don’t think this negates my point, however.

    • TurelieTelcontar

      Consider the forms of government in these countries before Stalin/Mao/Franco came to power:
      They were empires/a kingdom ruled by a monarch who ruled by god’s grace. In the case of Russia, the czar was the head of the russian-orthodox church. The monarchs’ biggest powerbase were the churches/biggest organized religion in every country. So, the new dictators were atheists because only a non-religious perso would go against a tenet of their faith in overthrowing the monarch. And on the other hand, logically, the churches had to be dismantled before they could actually organize a resistance to the new government, as that would have been the end of that revolution.
      You have a similar effect in France during the revolution 1789. In order to get rid of someone who is actually legitimated as a ruler by the fact that the church hierarchy says he is put there by god, when 98% of the population belong to that church, you have to get the support of that church, get rid of that church, or get rid of religion “officially”. Otherwise, you might just as well give up before you started.

      • http://avoiceinthewilderness-mcc1789.blogspot.com/ Michael

        That’s a very good point. I’m sure the previous regimes being so wrapped up with a state religion was definitely part of the reason it was targeted.

    • Scott_In_OH

      I think Michael is basically right–Bob may be correct on a technicality, but it doesn’t seem like a powerful rebuttal.

      Soviet communism (or whatever it was) was explicitly anti-clerical and anti-religious because it was explicitly atheist. It argued that organized religion prevented the proletariat from advancing, and it targeted religious leaders for persecution.

      Now, it did so in the name of the proletariat, and it did the same thing to a lot of other, non-religious, targets. Also, plenty of the attacks (on religious and non-religious) in reality had nothing to do with helping the working class.

      Still, the fact that the ideology was atheist meant that it was likely to see religion as a threat, and it did.

      Maybe Bob’s point is that the problem was that the atheism was unconstrained by a democratic process, and that lack of constraint is a problem no matter what the guiding ideology is?

      • http://avoiceinthewilderness-mcc1789.blogspot.com/ Michael

        I would definitely agree-lack of constraint leads to bad things, in any ideology.

      • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/ BobSeidensticker

        Scott:

        Soviet communism (or whatever it was) was explicitly anti-clerical and anti-religious because it was explicitly atheist.

        … and why was it atheist? Wasn’t the atheism a symptom of something else?

        Or are you saying that they had a powerful urge to convert the rest of the world to their atheistic philosophy? That their atheism urged them to commit certain acts? Or maybe their dogma or holy writ told them to?

        I’m back at square one, trying to see things from an atheist-only viewpoint. “I don’t believe in god, therefore” … therefore what?

    • smrnda

      I like what you pointed about about Scandinavia. To me, the correct understanding of religion as it pertains to democratic socialism is, once you fix problems of poverty and inequality by changing the economic structure, demand for religion will go down. You can’t just get rid of religion and then find everything okay. If a person in pain is taking opiates, and you take the opiate away, they’re just in more pain.

      The problem, particularly with Mao, is that there was no way the Chinese or Russian regimes could deliver on a decent standard of living. Mao seemed to believe that through willpower and ‘correct belief’ alone you can raise the standard of living in a nation. This actually goes against what Marx wrote, which was that if a country did not yet reach a certain stage of development, a revolution just doesn’t deliver since the means of production aren’t advanced enough yet.

      At the same time, Mao couldn’t possibly let himself or his own special interpretation be blamed, so he blamed others, and we get the Cultural Revolution down the road.

      I’m not sure though if I can really say Mao’s crimes were done ‘in the name of atheism.’ Scapegoating religious people was just a way to get around accepting any blame, and Mao seemed to believe in kind of magical thinking.

      • http://avoiceinthewilderness-mcc1789.blogspot.com/ Michael

        I completely agree smrnda. You made the same point far better than me. I certainly don’t mean that all of Mao’s crimes, nor Stalin’s, etc., were done because of atheism, but at least some had to do with militant anti-theistic atheist views held by the communists. Many of the people they killed were atheists too, however-dissidents were targeted in general.

        • smrnda

          Having read a lot about the Cultural Revolution, religions, be they Christian, Buddhist, or just about anything else, were easy scapegoats. In a way it reminds me of Christians scapegoating Jews – Christian belief has certain antisemitic tendencies which make targeting Jews easy to justify by theology, the way that if you’re view is religion is dangerous and backwards, you can justify attacking religious people.

          Any ideology has to identify bad ideas or groups of people likely to cause trouble, and sometimes this can be taken way out of hand, even when you make correct assessments. I would agree that religions cause a lot of damage, but I’m not about to think that it’s okay to kill a bunch of people and burn down some churches. At the same time, I wonder if the people who do stuff like that are really just looking to cause violent chaos and will seize any justification. It’s probably hard to really tell.

  • avalon

    “For example, we all agree that baby torture is wrong.”

    Not everyone:
    How blessed will be the one who grabs your babies and smashes them on a rock! (Psalm 137:9)

    avalon

    • Nox

      An odd example of something we could all agree on considering what Lennox thinks happens to babies who die without accepting Jesus.

  • MNb

    “why don’t they take seriously the violence and harm …”
    I do. That’s why I am neither a stalinist nor a maoist.

    “Stalin was an atheist because he was a dictator.”
    That’s questionable. Stalin had nothing against deifying himself.

    “Marx said that religion was the opium of the people.”
    Not that I’m a marxist, but the Soviet-Union wasn’t marxist either. Lenin made some important amendments. What’s more, it can be argued that the very idea of dictature of the proletariat was opium of the people too. Bakunin made a point like that back in 1870. So this is another religious aspect of the SU and even of marxism in general.

    “by what standard do they judge something as evil?”
    Happiness, pain, suffering, you name it.

    “There’s no rational justification for moral concepts if you abolish God.”
    I’m willing to accept that, in the sense that the only justification for using happiness seems to be that the overwhelming majority of people, including religious ones, prefer to be happy and rather avoid pain and suffering. Unfortunately for Lennox his god is neither rational nor a justification.

    “We all believe in absolute values”
    No, not me. But I do think some values are to preferred and others should be rejected. Because of happiness, pain and suffering. Note that the Bible doesn’t believe in absolute values either – they’ve changes quite a bit a couple of times.

    “Atheists can’t justify morality.”
    So what? Neither can believers.
    (BobS’ answer is not a justification, but an explanation based on scientific facts why humans have a sense of morality. Note that some don’t).

    “in what sense has the atheist solved the Problem of Evil?”
    Herman Philipse again – atheism far better explains why human beings recognize good and evil than theism.

    “But evil and pain haven’t gone away.”
    Correct. I still have to meet the first atheist who thinks this utopian goal can be realized. Personally I prefer to learn to cope with it to longing for an imaginary world which on a closer look isn’t attractive at all.

    “Note that you’ve also gotten rid of all hope.”
    On the contrary. It’s typical for parents for instance that they hope their children will have a better life than themselves. In this world. I want to make it a better place, even if my contribution is tiny. Still I’m very proud of what I actually did accomplish. In this world. I think this splendid thought (it’s not originally mine of course) offers more hope than any religion can.

    “we’d be robots without free will.”
    What about the free will of the victims of our bad actions? Does your god even care? Do you, John Lennox? If yes, why are you so indifferent about your god’s attitude towards those victims? If Elisabeth Fritzl or those three American women who were locked up for seven years or so will ask you, what comfort and hope do yóú and your god have to offer? What are you going to tell them about their free will? Not to mention natural disasters? Couldn’t your god have warned the 20 000 victims of the Japanese tsunami of 2011? Are you going to argue that the free will of the evil culprits is more valuable than the free will of those women?
    Thank you for pointing out exactly why I never will be a christian, even when I will convert.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/ BobSeidensticker

      MNb: A thorough critique; thanks.

      I appreciate all who’ve jumped in with their responses to Lennox (on either side).

  • Tree

    Stalin and Mao were communists, not just atheists. The things they did came from their understand of communist doctrines. I am not a communist, although I am an atheist. Communism is pretty much defunct as an ideology now. For that reason, I don’t see the point in trying to descredit communism…it’s already been discredited.Communism is a type of atheism, but it’s not the only one. To blame all atheism, everywhere, for things done in the name of communism is like blaming buddhists for the burning of heretics by the Catholic church.

    All the rest of his arguements are the same tired old rubbish apologists have been spewing out for years. There are refutations of all his points on the internet already.

  • Reginald Selkirk

    Atheists complain about the evil that God allows, but by what
    standard do they judge something as evil? If there is no god, good and
    evil are just a matter of opinion. There’s no rational justification for
    moral concepts if you abolish God.

    What incredible ignorance. It is startling that someone who knows so little about ethics would make such a public display of his ignorance. Note the conflation of God-given morality with absolute morality. Any first year philosophy student should be able to shred this pablum.

    • Reginald Selkirk

      Further: There are atheist philosophers who believe in absolute morality. I think they’re wrong, but they do exist. And someone needs to go all Euthyphro on his @$$.

      • Reginald Selkirk

        Daniel Fincke of Camels with Hammers is an example of an atheist who believed in objective morality. Just recently someone seems to have hit him over the head with “shared != objective” hard enough to penetrate a bit, so I don’t know if he will finally wise up or not. Human psychology is a tricky thing.

  • KarlUdy

    Because the atheism was a consequence of the actual problem, that these regimes were dictatorships. Stalin was an atheist because he was a dictator. He wasn’t a dictator because he was an atheist!

    As someone else mentioned I don’t think this is what you actually meant. What you probably meant is that “Stalin was responsible for the deaths of millions because he was a dictator …”

    However, even if you wanted to say that, it doesn’t provide a better explanation of Stalin’s horrors than atheism as there are many dictators who did do the horrors that Stalin did.

    And I do think that Dostoyesvsky’s quote in The Brother’s Karamazov: “If there is no God, then all things are permissable” is relevant here. Not because all atheists will not hold themselves to any code of morals, but that by spreading the idea that there is no moral authority beyond yourself, sooner or later someone is going to be Smerdyakov to your Ivan and commit moral outrage. Whether this was the case for Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot I can’t be sure, but what I can be confident of is that there are atheists that have done horrible things because they believed their deeds would never be judged, and thus did these horrible things as a consequence of their atheism.

    • http://twitter.com/ChardHollis Richard Hollis

      “it doesn’t provide a better explanation of Stalin’s horrors than atheism as there are many dictators who did do the horrors that Stalin did.”

      I don’t understand what you’re trying to say here. No-one is trying to provide an explanation for Stalin’s atrocities – the point is that atheism in general does not compel the behaviour of atheists. Therefore, it is illogical to attack the validity of atheism by the behaviour of a few atheists.

      ” “If there is no God, then all things are permissable [sic]” is relevant here. Not because all atheists will not hold themselves to any code of morals, but that by spreading the idea that there is no moral authority beyond yourself, sooner or later someone is going to be Smerdyakov to your Ivan and commit moral outrage.”

      The quote is silly. Atheists are not just moral nihilists. It does not diminish the importance of living morally to acknowledge that morality is a social construct, rather than being handed down from on-high by some deity.

      Imagine a group of people who think morality was given to us mere humans by the Giant Purple Fairy. The Fairyists say that anyone who denies the existence of the Giant Purple Fairy is playing a very dangerous game. Anyone who does so, they claim, is denying that morality is objective at all. Deny the Giant Purple Fairy and all things are permissible.

      Do you see the fallacy now?

      • KarlUdy

        No-one is trying to provide an explanation for Stalin’s atrocities – the point is that atheism in general does not compel the behaviour of atheists.

        That’s not how I read Bob’s post. He seemed to attribute Stalin’s behaviour to being a dictator.

        The quote is silly. Atheists are not just moral nihilists. It does not diminish the importance of living morally to acknowledge that morality is a social construct, rather than being handed down from on-high by some deity.

        It might help to read what I actually wrote. I agree that not all atheists are moral nihilists. But surely the vast majority of moral nihilists are atheists. And sooner or later, those who propose it as “merely a theory” will find someone who is prepared to put it into practice.

        the point is that atheism in general does not compel the behaviour of atheists.

        However, atheism in particular will influence/motivate the behaviour of particular atheists.

        I do want to draw on one more remark you made.

        Therefore, it is illogical to attack the validity of atheism by the behaviour of a few atheists.

        Isn’t this in essence what John Lennox is saying when he asks why focus on the wrongs committed under Christian rule and ignore the ills of atheistic regimes?

        • http://twitter.com/ChardHollis Richard Hollis

          “That’s not how I read Bob’s post. He seemed to attribute Stalin’s behaviour to being a dictator.”

          Indeed. But the difference between being an atheist and being a dictator is that the latter entails certain behaviours. The former does not.

          “I agree that not all atheists are moral nihilists. But surely the vast majority of moral nihilists are atheists. And sooner or later, those who propose it as “merely a theory” will find someone who is prepared to put it into practice.”

          Atheists are no less equipped to answer the nihilist than the theists are. Morality carries just as much importance if it is just a social construct than if it is handed down by God (arguably more so, since there is then no cosmic arbiter to dispense ultimate justice on the end of days). But to the person who does not care about morality, neither is compelling.

          Besides, there are many atheists who are moral objectivists. I have no idea why Christians persevere with this myth that all atheists are moral relativists.

          However, history has not been blighted by atheistic nihilists (who are generally, if dangerous, then at least solitary) half as much as it has by religious fanaticists – charismatic people who can rally a mob and convince people they are the mouthpiece of God – that their orders are of divine origin. And, of course, people who are totally beyond the appeal of reason. It is these people who stain the pages of history with blood. If we are going to single out any sort of person as an immediate threat to humanity, it would be them, no?

          “However, atheism in particular will influence/motivate the behaviour of particular atheists.”

          How? Does your lack of belief in Santa influence/motivate you? Does your lack of belief in dragons? Does your lack of belief in fairies? Does your lack of belief in goblins?

          “Isn’t this in essence what John Lennox is saying when he asks why focus on the wrongs committed under Christian rule and ignore the ills of atheistic regimes?”

          The difference is that Christianity (like most religions) does actively compel behaviour. People DO act on the basis of their Christian faith. They deny themselves blood transfusions and abortions which would save their lives purely out of faith. They go to war for holy causes, acting on their sincere belief in the existence of God. Atheism simply does not compel any belief of its adherents the way religion does.

          Compare belief in Santa with non-belief in Santa. Belief in Santa compels behaviour – writing a list of presents, leaving milk and cookies out, etc. These are actions carried out simply because the person believed in Santa. But what actions does a non-belief in Santa compel?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/ BobSeidensticker

          Richard:

          Compare
          belief in Santa with non-belief in Santa.

          Helpful, thanks.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/ BobSeidensticker

      Karl:

      Not because all atheists will not hold themselves to any code of morals, but that by spreading the idea that there is no moral authority beyond yourself, sooner or later someone is going to be Smerdyakov to your Ivan and commit moral outrage.

      So we’re not talking about whether Christianity is true or not, only whether it’s useful or not?

      It’s like you’re whispering to me, “Yeah, OK—it’s all BS, but don’t tell the proles! You and I can keep it together, but it’s only religion that’s keeping the low-lifes from rampaging through the streets. For the love of God, man, stop rocking the boat!”

      • KarlUdy

        So we’re not talking about whether Christianity is true or not, only whether it’s useful or not?

        Actually I was talking about atheism and pointing out that merely holding atheist viewpoints will not make someone act immorally, but that once someone starts to act on the implications of those viewpoints, there is a real possibility that they will do things that most of us consider abominable. Ivan had moral restraints that he was not aware of, or more to the point, he was not aware that there were those like Smerdyakov who did not share his moral restraints.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/ BobSeidensticker

          Karl:

          merely holding atheist viewpoints will not make someone act immorally, but that once someone starts to act on the implications of those viewpoints

          The viewpoint is nothing more or less than “I don’t have a god belief.” What implications are there?

          Granted, one implication is, “… and therefore there is no god to answer to.” Is there anything more?

          And I don’t see this one as particularly powerful. There’s still friends and family to answer to. I don’t see ultimate justice keeping many Christians from doing things that they would otherwise do.

          Experiment: I give you a list of someone’s personality traits plus the good and bad things they’ve done in life. Now you try to guess if they’re Christian or not.

          Ivan had moral restraints that he was not aware of, or more to the point, he was not aware that there were those like Smerdyakov who did not share his moral restraints.

          I’ve not read Karamazov, but I don’t know that a novel is particularly helpful here. I’d rather use real-life examples.

        • KarlUdy

          I’ve not read Karamazov

          Now there’s an unforgivable sin :-)

          I’d rather use real-life examples.

          Fine. How about Kermit Gosnell. It wouldn’t be atheism per se, but the issue of beliefs in theory and practice are very pertinent.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/ BobSeidensticker

          Karl:

          How about Kermit Gosnell.

          Yeah, that example paints a pretty hideous picture of what a post-Roe world would look like. If you hate the Gosnell example, keep abortion legal and safe! (And working to minimize unwanted pregnancies would be good as well, but we’ve already been there.)

          But I’m not sure where you’re going with Gosnell. Was he an atheist? What’s your point here?

        • KarlUdy

          As I said, not atheism per se. But the case is analogous to atheism and moral authority.

          Let me lead you through it.

          Abortion advocates say that a mother’s choice is paramount regarding the issues surrounding pregnancy. However, almost all would say that snipping the spines of babies that happen to live through the abortion procedure is wrong.

          But if a mother’s choice is paramount, and she has chosen that the foetus inside her should be killed, then there is a certain logic to the idea that if the actual abortion procedure doesn’t accomplish this, then the goal should be accomplished by other means.

          What Gosnell did was follow logical implications from what abortion advocates say, but to do things that most of them find abhorrent.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/ BobSeidensticker

          Karl:

          almost all would say that snipping the spines of babies that happen to live through the abortion procedure is wrong.

          It was against the law. I’m happy with what that law said.

          But if a mother’s choice is paramount, and she has chosen that the foetus inside her should be killed, then there is a certain logic to the idea that if the actual abortion procedure doesn’t accomplish this, then the goal should be accomplished by other means.

          The mother’s choice is paramount up to the point where the law says that it’s not. I’m happy with what the law says. What I’m not happy with is laws that deliberately violate Roe (introduced presumably to provide a lawsuit) or legislatures that make abortion effectively unavailable even if it’s technically legal.

          The issue with Gosnell was that he was breaking the law. His example does nothing to bolster the pro-life side.

        • KarlUdy

          What thought process could possibly have motivated Gosnell to break the law? And how could he possibly justify it? These are the relevant questions

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/ BobSeidensticker

          Karl: Puzzle away. Lots of people break the law. Is this guy the worst you’ve heard of?

          Again: this example does nothing to bolster the pro-life position.

        • KarlUdy

          Bob, I’m not talking about this to bolster the pro-life position. I’m talking about it as an explanation of how holding an idea in theory and putting it into practice are very different. And that the actions of the second may be abhorrent to the views of those in the first.

  • KarlUdy

    The natural explanation explains what we see without relying on anything supernatural. Morality has an instinctive part (from evolution) and a social part (from society).

    This is not the first time you have trotted out your assertion that we have moral instincts. There is no moral instinct. We do have moral intuitions, but I’m not sure if you want to go there, because being intuitions they are not automatic physical or physiological responses (which is what an instinct is), but rather responses that come via our mind, which is not going to lead to evolution as an explanation but instead to something approaching the conscience (in which case, you may need to rethink your thoughts on Peter Kreeft’s argument from conscience.)

    • smrnda

      I think this is trifling with words a bit. I don’t see why certain modes of thought cannot be influenced by evolution. For example, people have a tendency to attribute agency to things that have no intelligence, and this likely has survival value. Behavioral tendencies certainly have some biological component, though I think an interaction of factors is the best explanation.

      To separate PURE instinct from social programming is impossible, since outside of rare cases of feral humans, nobody grows up unless they’re inside a culture. I do find it interesting to think of how much of our behavior might be genetically programmed as opposed to taught.

      • KarlUdy

        For example, people have a tendency to attribute agency to things that have no intelligence, and this likely has survival value.

        Be very careful. If the genetic makeup of humanity predisposes our beliefs away from reality, we lose all basis for making claims as to what is and is not real.

        To separate PURE instinct from social programming is impossible, since outside of rare cases of feral humans, nobody grows up unless they’re inside a culture. I do find it interesting to think of how much of our behavior might be genetically programmed as opposed to taught.

        Culture and society is a separate issue. Instincts are physical reactions to outside stimuli. They can be suppressed by conscious effort but the fact that they are instincts means that they occur without any conscious decision. A good example is the instinct to open our mouths and inhale when we need oxygen. Very different from anything to do with morality. And can be easily distinguished from social programming.

    • Greg G.

      There can be a conflict between instincts such as when two grizzlies face off and the first battle is between the flight and fight instincts. Emotional and physical states may play a role as a satiated bear would be less reluctant to relinquish a carcass than a hungry one.

      Social creatures have even more interests in the balance so they must balance harmony with the group vs selfish needs or short-term vs long-term needs.

      It seems like hair splitting to reduce conflicting instinctual motivations to intuitions. If they are passed down biologically and the internal brain mechanisms are the same, and until we understand them as distinct, it’s a difference without a distinction.

      • KarlUdy

        It seems like hair splitting to reduce conflicting instinctual motivations to intuitions. If they are passed down biologically and the internal brain mechanisms are the same, and until we understand them as distinct, it’s a difference without a distinction.

        Perhaps it would be hairsplitting if that was what I was doing. What does Bob mean when he talks about moral instincts? He says that our moral instincts tell us that torturing babies is wrong. Instincts are about actions, not beliefs or thoughts.

        • Greg G.

          Would having a visceral revulsion against eating putrid meat not be instinctual because it’s an inaction? Humans tend to have a visceral revulsion to torture unless the victim has been dehumanized.

        • KarlUdy

          I think a gag reflex or wincing could be instinctual (but I’m no expert on the human body). The thought “this must be wrong” or “this is evil” however can not be.

          As an example, how do we distinguish between an emergency operation (say amputation of a gangrenous limb) and tortur?. The visceral reaction, I imagine, could well be identical. I, for one, would not want to watch either. But I would classify one as good and the other as evil.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/ BobSeidensticker

          Karl: If you’re just being the Dictionary Police to make sure we use the precisely correct definitions, that’s fine. Let’s not use instinct where a more precise word applies.

          But are you rejecting the idea of a moral intuition (to try out a new term) as part of humans’ programming?

        • KarlUdy

          I believe that humans do have a moral intuition, but when you say that humans have common thoughts and beliefs about morality then you run into ground where evolution is a very poor explanation.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/ BobSeidensticker

          Karl: Again, let’s be clear that the burden is not on me to provide the explanation.

          But expand on that. We’re all the same species. We all have very similar programming. How are common moral beliefs not well explained by evolution?

        • KarlUdy

          If you are right that thoughts and beliefs can be explained by evolution, how can you be sure that atheism is not simply an aberrant genetic condition?

          You’ve sawed off the branch you’re sitting on.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/ BobSeidensticker

          Karl:

          If you are right that thoughts and beliefs can be explained by evolution, how can you be sure that atheism is not simply an aberrant genetic condition?

          If you’re saying that the human mind is fallible, I agree. Why—is it any different from a Christian perspective?

          If neither of us is claiming a perfect brain, then I guess we’re back to where we started, with the null hypothesis.

          You’ve sawed off the branch you’re sitting on.

          Bold talk, but wrong. The burden of proof is yours. I don’t have to prove anything. You have a remarkable claim like a god exists that created everything, despite what science offers as an alternative, great. Show us.

        • KarlUdy

          If you’re saying that the human mind is fallible, I agree. Why—is it any different from a Christian perspective?
          If neither of us is claiming a perfect brain, then I guess we’re back to where we started, with the null hypothesis.

          The key question is “how can we access truth”? If an atheist can’t even trust the working of their own mind, what is left? A theist at least has other avenues to access truth.

          The burden of proof is yours. I don’t have to prove anything.

          A fairly common refrain from you now.If you don’t have to prove anything, it must be because you are not making any claims worth proving.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/ BobSeidensticker

          Karl:

          If an atheist can’t even trust the working of their own mind, what is left?

          Can’t trust? I think you underestimate how atheists evaluate their minds. It ain’t perfect, but it does a decent job.

          A theist at least has other avenues to access truth.

          Show that these other avenues have merit and I’ll use them as well. Until then, it’s just wishful thinking (and, looking at the other religions in the world, I suspect you’ll agree that there’s a lot of that going around).

          A fairly common refrain from you now.

          Yeah, and sounding increasingly plaintive. I keep waiting for you to say, “Burden?! Showing that the Lord Jesus Christ® is exists and lives even today?! That’s not a burden but a pleasure!”

          And I keep being disappointed.

        • KarlUdy

          Can’t trust? I think you underestimate how atheists evaluate their minds. It ain’t perfect, but it does a decent job.

          On what do you base your faith that it does a decent job? If you believe it deceives us about some things, how can you tell what you are and are not being deceived about?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/ BobSeidensticker

          Karl:

          On what do you base your faith that it does a decent job?

          Not faith, trust. Say you’re hitting a ball thrown by a pitching machine (each pitch is the same). You’ve got to respond very quickly. Your brain has a belief that if you swing a certain way, at a certain time, you’ll hit the ball. And, with practice, sure enough—you do.

          Sure, we could be in the Matrix, and everything is simulated. But if the ball really does fly away in response to your swing, that brain and its sensory input does a pretty decent job.

        • KarlUdy

          Not faith, trust.

          Faith is a perfectly valid word to describe the situation according to both the dictionary and general usage. You pull me up on not using the dictionary usage of “plausible” but using a definition based on how you seem to use it, and then you pull me up on using the dictionary definition of “faith”. Could we have some consistency? Please?

        • Kodie

          Faith is trust in your guess. That could be a weak or strong guess. Why do you have faith that demons cause diseases? Only because you haven’t ruled it out and you like to think so. Why do you have faith that there are objective morals? Because you like to ignore scientific and philosophic refutations. You don’t have a good, valid reason for telling yourself those stories while science proves you wrong. I don’t just have faith that the sun rises every morning only because it always does. From my perspective and knowledge, I just don’t have a good reason to understand why that always happens. I have the primitive brain like you and I observe and remember and make a guess. Every day I’m right but I don’t know why.

          Demons do not cause diseases. Scientists can easily ignore that and focus on what they actually see under the microscope and understand biology and chemistry. If demons cause diseases, then exorcisms ought to work rather decently and we never need to learn about biology or chemistry. If we train people how to ward off demons, they will be safe and healthy! If we learn just how demons work, we wouldn’t need medicine to outsmart them, but you assess the properties of demons can never be observed or understood since they can’t be detected. Another excuse. It’s a story that makes sense in your head until we ask “where are the demons then” and you revert to “well we don’t know they’re not there!” Yeah, they manipulate a living organism to wreck someone’s body but we can’t see them. Are the bacterias also friends with the demons or are they enslaved by the demons too? You don’t know but you will still make an answer to it. All it has to do is fit in the story you believe.

          On the other hand, my guess is supported by added information on the earth’s rotation and orbit around the sun. The sun doesn’t “rise,” it doesn’t move across the sky – the earth rotates. So I was wrong, but I wasn’t far wrong in guessing that it happens every day – and that is what a day is. My faith was a guess and comprehended the situation slightly wrong. Since it’s not hidden in the ether, magically operating, I could be corrected about what I had previously believe but not stick to my faith. If it were discovered that, instead of the solar system, the earth did exist inside a dome in which gods drew the sun across our sky, it wouldn’t look like it does. Faith is not the best way to get information – it does seem to be the best way to invent stories if you don’t really know.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/ BobSeidensticker

          Karl: We have a common definition of “plausible.” When you invent a ludicrous definition and try to pin it on me, I will (not surprisingly) reject that.

          One definition of faith is “firm belief in something for which there is no proof.” I agree that trust can be used as a synonym, but this leads to ambiguity.

          This is never the definition of trust, and, since I wanted to emphasize that a strong grounding in evidence was part of my view, I wanted to avoid a word that has these ambiguous meanings.

          I’m guessing that my desire for clear communication will continue to disappoint.

        • Kodie

          A theist doesn’t have any other avenues to access truth. If you want to talk about how demons affect people, you have to talk about how you accessed that truth, or admit it’s an irrational guess, given what we know now about how diseases are caused. You take huge leaps across logic to say “but what I believe might be possible” and using only your mind and nothing more than anyone else, you are fallible. You can’t close the gap in your logic, and you can’t stand it being pointed out to you. You never did explain how demons are undetectable by humans and human instruments of exploration and detection, but a virus can be willed to make a person sick on demand of a demon. Why are you thinking here that you have nothing to prove? You are all about “Bob, prove there aren’t demons! You can’t, so I win!” When do we get to the part where you use reason. Explain to us your methods of discernment – no, you just think so, you are just using your brain, and you are an example of how faulty the working of your own mind is. Don’t cast that shit on the rest of us.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/ BobSeidensticker

          Karl: Good point about “instinct.” What word should I use to refer to the moral programming that people are born with?

        • KarlUdy

          Moral intuition? Conscience?

        • avalon

          Hi Karl,

          “What does Bob mean when he talks about moral instincts? He says that our
          moral instincts tell us that torturing babies is wrong. Instincts are
          about actions, not beliefs or thoughts.”

          I don’t think Bob is completely wrong about moral instincts. This ties in with a false argument I hear often from theists, so allow me to kill two birds at once:

          Theists will claim that if moral values are subjective (ie. coming from our brain) then “they’re no different than our preference in favorite ice cream”.

          A simple thought experiment will prove Bob right about instincts and theists wrong about subjectivity:

          Imagine you’re in a restaurant eating your favorite ice cream, chocolate. Next table over a guy chooses strawberry ice cream, a flavor you don’t like. What motivational force will cause you to act on his choice of strawberry? Given that you only have a weak emotional reaction to strawberry ice cream, you won’t feel much motivation at all. Perhaps, if you really dislike it you’ll look away while he eats.
          Now, imagine your young son is with you. He’s so happy about the ice cream that he stands on the table and drops his pants! You ask him to sit down and get dressed, but he ignores you. So you grab his arm and yank him down, pull up his pants, and give him a swat on the rump. What will be the reaction of your fellow diners? We can guess that some will approve of spanking and smile and nod. Some may be slightly uncomfortable with spanking and give you a dirty look. One may be radically opposed to spanking and come over to lecture you on the evils of spanking; perhaps threatening to report you for child abuse. All these reactions can be considered mid-level emotional responses and motivations to various degrees.
          Now imagine the guy next to you (eating strawberry ice cream) has his young son with him too. The kid starts crying because he didn’t get any ice cream. The father takes his table knife and drives it thru the kids hand, pinning it to the table. What will be people’s reaction? Based on the strong emotional content, the motivation to protect the kid will compel every rational person to act. These acts will not be reasoned out before hand. They will be swift and automatic, like an instinct.
          All of these reactions are based on our emotions which come from our brains. Because we all share the same basic brain we expect to see a fairly narrow range of emotional responses and motivated actions. The man who simply looks away while a child is stabbed is suspected of having a damaged brain (unless he happened to be lobotomized). Likewise, a man who attacks someone for simply choosing strawberry ice cream is considered equally damaged.

          What I hope this shows is:
          1. In extreme cases our emotional reactions to a situation can bring about an instinct to act (Bob is partially correct).
          and
          2. Just because I think morals values are subjective, it does not follow that they are no more important than our preference for ice cream. There is a sliding scale of emotional content and motivations which come with our subjective choices and these play a vital role in our actions.

        • KarlUdy

          Avalon,
          In response to (1), I do not believe that the instinct is to act. The instinct may be a horrified reaction, a scream or something like that. The actions to protect the child would be a conscious decision.

          Regarding (2), the issue regarding subjectivity and morality comes up when we encounter those whose morality differs from us. Do you feel certain that it is wrong to eat or not to eat a certain flavour of ice cream, and that people should be compelled to act accordingly? Yet people do feel certain that genocide or sex slavery is wrong and that people should be compelled to act accordingly. If someone disagrees (and some must, otherwise our world would not have these problems) then on what basis can we say that our take on morality is right and theirs is wrong? You can appeal to your inner convictions, but so can they. You can appeal to the consensus of society about the wrongness of such things, yet there are societies that approve of such actions.

          A Japanese politician recently made the news for saying that the comfort women of WWII were necessary to maintain discipline in the army – in other words, according to his personal view the press-ganging of Korean and Chinese women to serve as sex slaves for the Japanese soldiers was not wrong. Japanese society of that time obviously saw nothing wrong with it (and given the reluctance of Japan to apologize for these actions it appears a significant proportion of Japanese society still do not see anything wrong with it.) If morality is subjective then how can we possibly condemn this as wrong, when these people neither have personal objections or societal objections? If we say that our society finds it morally wrong, then is not the enforcing of our society’s morals on another society simply imperialism? (Although, whether imperialism is right or wrong, and on what grounds would be even murkier depths.)

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/ BobSeidensticker

          Karl:

          on what basis can we say that our take on morality is right and theirs is wrong?

          You’re wondering why we can claim that our morality is objectively better than theirs? We don’t. We simply say that we think that they are wrong, and if it’s something that’s actually important (yes for genocide; no for ice cream) then we act on that belief.

          You can appeal to your inner convictions, but so can they.

          And this gets sticky if we imagine an objective truth. Solution: drop that concept.

          If morality is subjective then how can we possibly condemn this as wrong

          What you should be asking is: If forcing women into sex slavery is objectively wrong, why is this not universally appreciated?!

          Yet again, the problem vanishes when you drop that unwarranted concept. If morality is subjective, we have no grounds for declaring them to be objectively wrong. But we can certainly say that, in our opinion, they are wrong. (What else does “wrong” mean?)

          If we say that our society finds it morally wrong, then is not the enforcing of our society’s morals on another society simply imperialism?

          Only rarely is a society in a position to impose its morals on another. The Nuremburg Trials are an example. In general, like our hand wringing about Japanese politicians even now being reluctant to admit that they made a mistake, we don’t.

        • KarlUdy

          You’re wondering why we can claim that our morality is objectively better than theirs? We don’t. We simply say that we think that they are wrong, and if it’s something that’s actually important (yes for genocide; no for ice cream) then we act on that belief.

          So when there is a disagreement, the outcome comes down to power. So in the case of the Nuremberg Trials there was no moral authority, it was really just a punitive effort by those who won the war to punish those who lost?! This is a logical consequence of your position that though we think our moral stances are important, they are subjective.

          What you should be asking is: If forcing women into sex slavery is objectively wrong, why is this not universally appreciated?!

          Yet again, the problem vanishes when you drop that unwarranted concept. If morality is subjective, we have no grounds for declaring them to be objectively wrong. But we can certainly say that, in our opinion, they are wrong. (What else does “wrong” mean?)

          Christian theism describes humanity’s moral state as fallen and sinful, so we do not always live up to or are even necessarily aware of how we do not meet the universe’s absolute moral standards.

          The question you need to answer is: If it is just your opinion, why should anyone who holds a different opinion submit to yours?

          Only rarely is a society in a position to impose its morals on another. The Nuremburg Trials are an example.

          Islamic law has been imposed on many different societies over the last 1000 years or so (and it is still happening in some places around the world.) During the colonial expansion many societies around the world (including Africa, North and South America, the Pacific Islands) were made to live according to European morals, for good or ill. One society imposing their morals on another society has been a common refrain throughout history.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Karl:

          This is a logical consequence of your position that though we think our moral stances are important, they are subjective.

          Obviously. Objective grounding would be nice. But even getting someone who claims it to back up those claims is very difficult—witness my struggle with you.

          we do not always live up to or are even necessarily aware of how we do not meet the universe’s absolute moral standards.

          Do absolute moral truths exist? If so but we’re unable to access them, why even speculate?

          What I imagine you think (I’ll fill the vacuum since you can’t) is that they exist but that we see them through a mirror darkly. But why invent the incredible concept of absolute moral grounding? Why not accept the natural explanation: we have shared moral values because we’re all the same species?

          If it is just your opinion, why should anyone who holds a different opinion submit to yours?

          It’s weird–it’s like you’re an anthropologist and you’re wondering how these curious humans act. Do you interact with people? Ever had a disagreement? You’ve never convinced someone else that you were right (or vice versa)?

        • avalon

          Hi Karl,

          “the issue regarding subjectivity and morality comes up when we encounter those whose morality differs from us.:

          This is indeed the common usage of the word subjective. I was referring to subjective in the philosophical sense, as defined by William Lane Craig and Peter Kreeft. According to their definition, we could all agree on some moral issue but it’d still be objectively wrong.

        • KarlUdy

          Agreed that we could all agree and all be wrong. Most practical cases and discussion will involve differing moral opinions though.

        • avalon

          Karl,

          “Agreed that we could all agree and all be wrong.”

          Do you REALLY believe that? Let’s follow that belief to it’s logical conclusion. If we all agree and we all could wrong, then how can anyone give any example of an objective moral value? If that’s what you really believe then do you agree that torturing babies for fun could be morally right?

          I want you to imagine seeing a baby tortured for fun. Now pay close attention to your emotional (and maybe physical) reactions to this imagined scene. What do you feel? Could you ever call this collection of experiences morally right?

          Hopefully you will begin to see that moral values added to emotional reactions. The automatic emotional response occurs first, then we attach a moral value to it. And this all occurs in the brain naturally.

          But perhaps I’m wrong. So tell me please, can you imagine that torturing babies for fun could be morally right?

          avalon

        • KarlUdy

          Do you REALLY believe that?

          It is certainly possible that there are issues in the world in which no one (myself included) is holding the right moral view. Which they might be, obviously, I cannot tell.

          However, I don’t believe this means that we have no grasp of objective morality. Some things are clear, others less so. I have no doubt that torturing babies for fun is wrong. And I have doubt that the Jewish Holocaust is wrong. I have no doubt that the Japanese slavery of comfort women in WWII was wrong. I have no doubt that the LRA and others’ press-ganging of child soldiers is wrong. I have no doubt that today’s child sex-trafficking is wrong.

          So in most issues around the world, someone holds the right view, and there are several issues in which almost all of us hold the right view.

        • avalon

          Karl,

          “It is certainly possible that there are issues in the world in which no
          one (myself included) is holding the right moral view. Which they might
          be, obviously, I cannot tell.”

          Great, you’ve proven you’re more logical than William Lane Craig. Now, if it’s possible were all wrong to think baby-torture-for-fun is evil; where does that lead us?
          Well, if God is the source of objective moral values and baby-torture-for-fun is objectively good. Then is God still perfectly good to torture babies for fun. Obviously so, because God is good objective, not good by our human judgement of him. If God says it’s good then it’s objectively true. We may all universally disagree in the strongest possible way but that’s just our subjective opinion.

          Hopefully you can see my point. They are:

          1. Objective moral value theory makes our intuitions about morals irrelevant. We may disagree individually, collectively, or universally but we could all be wrong.

          2. Objective moral value theory does not provide any standard for morality. Instead, it makes the words “good” and “evil” completely meaningless by divorcing them from our common human experience. It is possible God (or us) torturing babies for fun is objectively good. And that defies our common experience.

          When you say “God is perfectly good” everyone assumes you mean good AS WE HUMANS THINK OF GOOD. So, WE judge goodness (ours and God’s) by OUR experience, not some far-flung standard that we could all be mistaken about. The fact is, if we universally agree that baby torture for fun is evil then that universal agreement is the standard we must accept. The fact that it’s grounded in our collective minds (rather than existing objectively) makes no difference. The alternative, to believe baby torture for fun is objectively good, is something we cannot force our minds to do. Clearly, when Craig uses this example as an objective moral truth, he’s built it on the foundation of our collective human experience, which is (as he says) subjective. It should also be clear that when he says we can all agree on a moral value and still be wrong objectively, he’s making nonsense out of the words “good” and “evil”. This makes a perfectly good God capable of being experienced by us universally as perfectly evil. So God as a source of moral values which are good can be experienced by us as totally evil, but we’d all be wrong.

          “I have no doubt that torturing babies for fun is wrong.”

          WHY???!!! Because every person on the planet agrees with you?!!! You’ve just said that universal agreement means nothing in regard to objective moral truth.

          Is it because you have strong FEELINGS about it? That’s not objective, that’s just your opinion based on emotion.

          So please, enlighten me. If we can all universally agree and all be wrong, what makes you certain torturing babies for fun is wrong?

          ” I have no doubt… I have no doubt… I have no doubt… I have no doubt… I have no doubt…”

          According to objective moral value theory, we can all be absolutely certain and agree universally but still all be wrong. Your lack of doubt is just your subjective experience in your mind. So I’m unimpressed by your lack of doubt no matter how strongly you may personally feel about it.

          “So in most issues around the world, someone holds the right view, and
          there are several issues in which almost all of us hold the right view.”

          Yes, according to OMV theory it makes no difference how many people agree (they may all be wrong). And we can’t count votes because majority rule is still just human opinion. So let’s say the few people who believe baby torture for fun is objectively good are objective right. Your personal opinion against that matters not one bit. Our collective majority opinion doesn’t matter either. Your strong feelings, all our strong feeling, they mean nothing. We may force him to stop torturing babies for fun but might doesn’t make it objectively right. So, tell me, what makes it objectively wrong?

          avalon

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Karl:

          However, I don’t believe this means that we have no grasp of objective morality. Some things are clear, others less so.

          You’re describing my position: we have a common moral programming. Morality is shared, not objective.

          And no need to imagine anything supernatural or transcendent. Explains the facts without unnecessary assumptions.

          I have no doubt that torturing babies for fun is wrong.

          I share that view. Now: why imagine that this is an objective moral truth? Why not say instead that it’s a universal moral truth?

        • avalon

          Hi Karl,

          “A Japanese politician recently made the news for saying that the comfort
          women of WWII were necessary to maintain discipline in the army – in
          other words, according to his personal view the press-ganging of Korean
          and Chinese women to serve as sex slaves for the Japanese soldiers was
          not wrong.”

          You have fallen into the bad habit of seeing moral debates as involving only ONE issue. This is never the case.

          In your example there are at least two moral issues: a woman’s autonomy over her body and defending a nation from attack. I assume you’ll agree it’s right to defend a nation from attack. So, how far will you go to do that? You might advocate killing people with guns, or tanks, or bombs. You might even say it’s OK to drop atomic bombs on two cities killing civilians to protect your country.

          If that’s the case, how can you logically object to forcing a relatively few women to have sex temporally if it saves your country?

          Also, if you agree a woman has an objective right to bodily autonomy, then why oppose abortion? If it’s OK to override a woman’s right to bodily autonomy to save one life, then what’s wrong with Japanese officials overriding a handful of women’s rights to save a whole country?

          You may argue that the Japanese officials beliefs were incorrect concerning the outcome of the war if they didn’t use sex slaves, but you (and they) are both trying to predict the future. Neither of you can do so accurately. What you may not do is deny that the officials believed what they did. (That’d be like me saying you don’t really believe in God when you say you do).

          Christian moralists often try to claim a moral debate is about one issue. This is rarely the case.

          They are also very good at confusing the issue with clever wording. For example: baby torture. Christian moralists often say, “Torturing a baby for fun is always wrong.” Supposedly this is about the morality of baby torture, but it’s not. The qualifier “FOR FUN” inserts a second moral right into the discussion, the pursuit of happiness. We can also assume the right of equality for the baby and the supposed torturer. These two words (“for fun”) changes everything. The debate is now about the happiness and everyone’s right to it. Torture becomes irrelevant since it is only one of many means of denying happiness.

          Let’s examine baby torture without the qualifier “for fun” and see why Christian moralists don’t omit it. “Torturing babies is always wrong”. Is this an objective moral truth? Can you always agree it’s true? Suppose a madman has nuclear bombs set to go off all over the country. He’ll turn himself in if we meet his one demand: torture a baby on live TV for ten minutes. Now how do you view things? If torturing one baby for a few minutes saves millions of lives is it still wrong to do it?

          If you wish to engage in moral debates I suggest you always try to see all the moral issues involved (there’s almost always more than one). If you don’t know what moral rights are being discussed, then what you say will have no relevance. Secondly, I would encourage you to use critical thinking when you hear moral statements in order to determine what’s actually being said.

          Take care,
          avalon

        • avalon

          Karl,

          “”A Japanese politician recently made the news for saying that the comfort women of WWII were necessary to maintain discipline in the army – in other words, according to his personal view the press-ganging of Korean and Chinese women to serve as sex slaves for the Japanese soldiers was
          not wrong.”

          The Japanese politician was NOT saying press-ganging of Korean and Chinese women to serve as sex slaves for the Japanese soldiers was not wrong. That is an assumption you made which will make it impossible to get anywhere in a discussion.

          Why not try this instead?

          1. Acknowledge the moral right he is claiming, namely, the defense of your country in a time of war.

          Suggested statement: ‘It’s certainly your right to defend your country in a time of war and military discipline is vital for doing so.’

          2. Acknowledge that there will be certain relevant facts in every moral situation and one of you may know those facts better than the other.

          Suggested statement: ‘I don’t know much about your country’s history or that particular war, so I’m sure you’re better informed than me.’

          3. Having acknowledged his rights and his superior knowledge, you can now show your openness to hearing his reasons.

          Suggested question: ‘Perhaps you can tell me what evidence led you to believe the sex slaves were vital to the military victory of Japan?’

          What will his answer be? I really don’t know. He may actually have evidence for his belief or he may not. If so,you will have learned something new and gained a better understanding of your fellow man and the situation they were in. If not, then he has exposed himself as someone trying to justify some very bad behavior (and perhaps learned something about himself in the process). Either way you’ll have gotten somewhere with the discussion. And that’s something that won’t happen if you merely focus on one issue.

          avalon

        • KarlUdy

          Avalon,

          I appreciate that most things in life are not simply about one issue, but I do maintain that this politicians’s statements amount to a justification of the Japanese Army’s use of comfort women in WWII.

          Suggested question: ‘Perhaps you can tell me what evidence led you to believe the sex slaves were vital to the military victory of Japan?’

          Good question. What would be an acceptable answer for you? (You can probably guess my answer.)

          And would you pursue the same line of reasoning for Heydrich et al regarding the formulation of “The Final Solution” in Wannsee?

        • avalon

          Karl,

          “I appreciate that most things in life are not simply about one issue”

          Good, you’re making progress.

          “I do maintain that this politicians’s statements amount to a justification of the Japanese Army’s use of comfort women in WWII.”

          On what evidence do you “maintain” this view?

          You may suspect this is the case (I certainly do), but given his superior knowledge of the situation I think you should listen before you decide. Don’t you?

          “Good question. What would be an acceptable answer for you?”

          I don’t know, but I allow for the possibility. For example, I am good friends with a woman who was a Hitler Youth. Before I met her I couldn’t imagine any reason why someone would support Hitler. After hearing her life story I came to appreciate her situation and point of view at that time. Likewise I don’t know what the Japanese endured at that time, so I’m willing to listen.
          Only after hearing his story can I begin to discuss whether he has weighted his options correctly. And as I said, simply asking him to explain may make him aware of his justification.

          In regard to your claim, what do you hope to accomplish by saying he thought sex slavery was “not wrong”? Where do you see that discussion going?

          avalon

        • KarlUdy

          Before I met her I couldn’t imagine any reason why someone would support Hitler. After hearing her life story I came to appreciate her situation and point of view at that time.

          Understanding that someone had reasons for doing something doesn’t mean that those reasons justify the actions. They may explain, but they do not necessarily make it right.

          In regard to your claim, what do you hope to accomplish by saying he thought sex slavery was “not wrong”? Where do you see that discussion going?

          It was a discussion point regarding this discussion on morality. Perhaps I did not put it the best way, perhaps I should have said that he thought that sex slavery was justifiable in times of war.

        • avalon

          Hi Karl,

          (From previous post)

          “which is why I specifically said “good choice”.

          No, you said:”according to his personal view the press-ganging of Korean and Chinese women to serve as sex slaves for the Japanese soldiers was
          not wrong.” You changed to “good choice” after I pointed out what the man actually said. This use of ‘not wrong’ or ‘morally good’ is used quite frequently by objective moralists who wish to focus on a single moral issue rather than acknowledge competing issues. Go watch some W.L. Craig debates or read them at his web site if you want to see for yourself.

          “In a sense, all of our moral choices are “subjective” because they are made from our particular point of view at a certain time in a certain situation. This does not mean that objective morality does not exist – it just means that sometimes it is not clear to us. However, it often is clear.”

          What is or is not clear is, as you said, “from our particular point of view”. That is, subjectively.

          “The Nazis (at least those in the Wannsee conference) decided that it was better to kill all the Jews than to have them live in Germany, better than sterilising them so that they would die out within a generation in Germany – in fact, even better than expelling all of them. The Japanese thought it was better to enslave foreign women for sex for their soldiers than risk their soldiers rioting because they didn’t have enough … sex? fun? entertainment? what?

          Have I put the situations correctly? Would you regard either of these positions as morally defensible?”

          Regarding Germany, no you have not put the situation correctly. You seem to lack the historical context and situations which led the German people to support Hitler.

          In regard to Japan, you ask me if you put it correctly. This is the second time you have misunderstood me, so let me be clear: I am NOT an apologist for sex slavery and I fail to see how you conclude that by me simply asking the man for more information. I AM a proponent of informed decision making which is why I would ask for more information BEFORE I MAKE A DECISION.

          Let me give you an analogy: suppose I told that Japanese official that in our past some Americans ate their fellow Americans. Would that give him sufficient information to make a moral judgement? (Note: I’m not talking about an initial reaction, I’m talking judgement), Now let’s suppose he asks about the circumstances and I tell him about the Donner party, the Rockie Mountains, blizzards, starvation and isolation. (Note that the combination of these circumstances will at the very least blunt his initial reaction by evoking empathy.) Is it possible he’ll decide the Donner party made an acceptable choice? Maybe, maybe not. But the important thing is he’s gained understanding and empathy by knowing all the relevant facts and by doing so come to understand why someone might support a decision different from his own.

          Let’s say he still thinks they were wrong to resort to cannibalism. He tells you that in his culture people believe death is preferable to dishonor. And says if the Donner party was Japanese they’d all commit suicide before eating other people. But he also says he can understand why Americans might resort to this in such a dire situation.

          I hope I have made clear why I am a proponent of informed decision-making and why I’d want to hear what this man had to say. It may not change my initial reaction or it may change everything. I really don’t know. And you really don’t know either, yet you seem willing to pass moral judgement based on the smallest amount of information. Why is that?

          “The question is, do you believe his excuses are valid? Do those reasons excuse that behaviour?”

          I HAVEN”T HEARD his reasons to make any judgement to determine if the ARE excuses. The fact that you call them excuses indicates you’ve already decided that he can’t have real reasons. Are you so arrogant that you think you know every possible thing this man might say? Are you better informed than he about Japan, the war, and all the details of the situation? Because that’s what you seem to be claiming.

          avalon

        • KarlUdy

          This use of ‘not wrong’ or ‘morally good’ is used quite frequently by objective moralists who wish to focus on a single moral issue rather than acknowledge competing issues.

          I think you are missing the whole point about why these examples are used. It is not an attempt to pretend that the world, life and morality are much simpler than they really are, but to point to an example that the whole audience agrees on the moral stance that should be taken towards it. The reason for doing this is so we can talk about something else other than whether this particular thing is right or wrong. The point is not to focus on a single moral issue but to to point to the fact that we all think some things are good/right and others are wrong/evil. This is quite obvious to anyone who listens as once the point has been made, there is no further thought given to “torturing babies for fun”.

          Regarding Germany, no you have not put the situation correctly. You seem to lack the historical context and situations which led the German people to support Hitler.

          I’m not talking about the German people collectively. I said, “at least those at the Wannsee conference”, which is the conference where “The Final Solution” was decided, and they explicitly discussed these options before coming to these conclusions.

          I am NOT an apologist for sex slavery and I fail to see how you conclude that by me simply asking the man for more information. I AM a proponent of informed decision making which is why I would ask for more information BEFORE I MAKE A DECISION.

          The question is, how much information do you need to make a decision? He says that comfort women were necessary to maintain discipline in the Japanese army. At the point when the practice began, Japan were not “defending their country”, they were occupying and invading other countries.

          Let me give you an analogy: suppose I told that Japanese official that in our past some Americans ate their fellow Americans. used quite frequently by objective moralists who wish to focus on a single moral issue rather than acknowledge competing issues.

          Are you thinking that I do not understand what a moral dilemma is? Sure, most people would say that cannibalism is wrong if you asked them. Sure, most people would also say that if your life depended on it, eating the flesh of dead humans is morally defensible. If your life, or the life of your family depended on it, would the Holocaust or Japan’s comfort women be morally defensible?

          I HAVEN”T HEARD his reasons to make any judgement to determine if the ARE excuses. The fact that you call them excuses indicates you’ve already decided that he can’t have real reasons. Are you so arrogant that you think you know every possible thing this man might say? Are you better informed than he about Japan, the war, and all the details of the situation? Because that’s what you seem to be claiming.

          I said excuses because a good excuse can excuse certain behaviour.

          I do not believe that I know the situation in more detail than him. I do believe that he is suffering from a form of moral blindness or pride that prevents him from at least admitting the wrongness of the situation. And I think that his unwillingness to admit wrong is also wrong. Knowing how important honour and “face’ is to Japanese, I can undertstand the reasons but I don’t think it justifies his actions (or inaction).

        • avalon

          Hi Karl,

          “I think you are missing the whole point about why these examples are
          used. It is not an attempt to pretend that the world, life and morality
          are much simpler than they really are, but to point to an example that
          the whole audience agrees on the moral stance that should be taken
          towards it. The reason for doing this is so we can talk about something
          else other than whether this particular thing is right or wrong.”

          So if a majority (or even everyone) agrees that makes it objectively true? That’s not what you claim about objective morality. How is it that the majority can decide morals in one case but not in others? Does universal agreement mean something or not? Remember you said we could all agree and yet all be wrong.

          As soon as Craig says, “Everyone knows…(this particular thing) is wrong.”, he’s no longer talking about objective morals where we could all agree and still be wrong. Instead, he’s joined the subjectivists who claim we determine moral standards by what we collective believe.

          “I’m not talking about the German people collectively. I said, “at least
          those at the Wannsee conference”, which is the conference where “The
          Final Solution” was decided, and they explicitly discussed these options
          before coming to these conclusions.”

          Fine, then pass judgement on those 15 men. You have 15 military commanders following orders from the President in a time of war. At what point do they risk their own lives to disobey orders? And remember, whatever answer you come up with will apply equally to us, the good guys.

          “The question is, how much information do you need to make a decision?”

          More than I have now. Plus, if I ask him to explain and he is indeed making excuses, then perhaps having him verbalize his reasoning will enlighten him to what he is actually doing.

          I know I’ve been guilty of rationalizing in the past and become aware of it when asked to explain what I mean. Thinking it thru and hearing your own words out loud can make you aware of what’s actually going on.

          My question linking sex slaves to Japanese victory is intended to do just that. I might be surprised to learn something or he may be surprised by how flimsy his reasoning sounds when he actually has to speak it.

          “I do not believe that I know the situation in more detail than him. I do
          believe that he is suffering from a form of moral blindness or pride
          that prevents him from at least admitting the wrongness of the
          situation. And I think that his unwillingness to admit wrong is also
          wrong. Knowing how important honour and “face’ is to Japanese, I can
          undertstand the reasons but I don’t think it justifies his actions (or
          inaction).”

          That’s great! I’m on board with you. But I believe you’ll actually make progress in getting him to see that by

          1. acknowledging his claim to defense of his country
          and
          2. acknowledging his superior information and asking questions.

          If he really has no good reason then a series of questions will bring that out, not only for you and everyone who hears but possibly for himself.

        • KarlUdy

          So if a majority (or even everyone) agrees that makes it objectively true? That’s not what you claim about objective morality. How is it that the majority can decide morals in one case but not in others? Does universal agreement mean something or not? Remember you said we could all agree and yet all be wrong.

          No, when everyone in the room is agreed that a particular moral position is not up for debate, you can then go on to the next step, which in our particular discussion would be, “On what basis can you say that someone who dissents from this position is wrong?”

          Fine, then pass judgement on those 15 men. You have 15 military commanders following orders from the President in a time of war. At what point do they risk their own lives to disobey orders? And remember, whatever answer you come up with will apply equally to us, the good guys.

          Just following orders? I would argue that there is a moral authority than is higher than any civil authority.

          More than I have now. Plus, if I ask him to explain and he is indeed making excuses, then perhaps having him verbalize his reasoning will enlighten him to what he is actually doing.

          I know I’ve been guilty of rationalizing in the past and become aware of it when asked to explain what I mean. Thinking it thru and hearing your own words out loud can make you aware of what’s actually going on.

          My question linking sex slaves to Japanese victory is intended to do just that. I might be surprised to learn something or he may be surprised by how flimsy his reasoning sounds when he actually has to speak it.

          But we’re not in a situation where we’re talking to him to help him think about his position. The whole idea of how you and I should discuss this issue based on how a Japanese politician may consider the soundness of his reasoning is a complete side-issue. If either of us were unaware of the issue of comfort women then we could find out more information, but I suspect that we both know enough to know that “maintaining army discipline” is not going to cut it as an excuse.

          If he really has no good reason then a series of questions will bring that out, not only for you and everyone who hears but possibly for himself.

          And since he is not available for me to interview, this is a purely hypothetical scenario. But you have done a good job of trying to put his possible justifications across, but you seem to agree that his position is in all likelihood morally indefensible (ie we can’t imagine a plausible scenario which would justify the actions of the Japanese Army in forcing women to serve as “comfort women” in WWII).

          In which case we can move to my original question, which was:

          If morality is subjective then how can we possibly condemn this as wrong, when these people neither have personal objections or societal objections?

        • avalon

          Hi Karl,

          “No, when everyone in the room is agreed that a particular moral position
          is not up for debate, you can then go on to the next step, which in our
          particular discussion would be, “On what basis can you say that someone
          who dissents from this position is wrong?”

          Everyone in the room agreeing does not (according to objectivists) determine the objectivity of the issue. Subjectivists are the ones who say when everyone agrees with an issue then the morality of that issue has been determined.

          So citing a collective agreement on an issue does nothing to determine it’s objectivity (everyone could be wrong). Since the objectivity hasn’t been determined there’s no point in asking the next question, “”On what basis can you say that someone who dissents from this position is wrong?”. It’s a moot question since the only thing that’s been proven is mutual agreement, not objectivity.

          If as WLC says, “”To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so. ”
          Then our mutual agreement is meaningless in regard to the objectivity. We can agree that we all agree on an issue, and say we believe it’s true because of mutual agreement originating in our own human nature (that’s my theory).

          “”On what basis can you say that someone who dissents from this position is wrong?” On the basis of mutual agreement! On what basis can the objective moralist say someone who dissents is wrong? They can’t have a basis because mutual agreement does not equal objectivity (by your own definition of “independently of whether anybody believes it to be so”). According to objectivists, objective moral values are targets in a dark room and we’re all blind, deaf, and dumb shooting in the dark and frozen in place. In that case, on what basis can anyone make any claims about hitting or missing a target?

          &&&&&

          “In which case we can move to my original question, which was:
          If morality is subjective then how can we possibly
          condemn this as wrong, when these people neither have personal objections or societal objections?”

          Subjective morality is morality that is not independent of what anybody believes to be so. I believe the widely-held agreement is that the normal human reaction of rational men to sex slavery is a negative one. We move on from that automatic emotion and label it a moral feeling. This feeling of moral/immoral is always bound to the emotions which came first. I can object to an issue simply because of the intensely bad emotions they bring about in me without ever forming a moral judgement. If and when I do make a moral judgement it indicates my desire to spare others the intensely bad emotions I experienced.I assume they will experience these things in a similar way because all of my interactions with others have taught me that we’re all basically the same. This assumed sameness results in a perception of objectivity. (I am also aware of the relatively rare abnormal humans who lack emotional reactions called sociopaths; who merely mimic normal emotions. Their lack of real emotional response makes them dangerous to us. Since they have no emotional response, we label their actions as immoral.)

          As I explained below, I cannot believe in objective moral values where is something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so. You cannot separate the moral value from the emotional response that preceeded it.

        • KarlUdy

          Hi Avalon,

          Everyone in the room agreeing does not (according to objectivists) determine the objectivity of the issue. Subjectivists are the ones who say when everyone agrees with an issue then the morality of that issue has been determined.

          You seem to be completely missing my point. My point is that if we grant that morals are subjective then etc etc

          I’m getting the sense that we may be talking past each other here. If so, then we’d both be better off leaving this topic and moving on to other things.

          Thanks for the discussion :-)

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Karl:

          It’s obviously your call when a discussion is useful for you and when it’s a waste of time. As an observer, however, I find Avalon’s points quite compelling. Perhaps I, too, am missing your point, but your argument does seem to make the subjectivist case.

        • KarlUdy

          I was feeling as though Avalon wasn’t understanding my point. Maybe it is a failure of communication, or maybe there are some unspoken (or even unrecognized) assumptions (and it could be either or both of us). It just seems as though continuing the conversation is not going to get us beyond where we’ve got to so far.

          I am just not really getting how Avalon (or you) thinks my argument proves the subjectivist case, when I think it is pointing out a hole in it.

        • avalon

          Hi Karl,

          I’m sure your familiar with this:

          1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
          2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.

          The definition of OMV is “something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so”.

          That is, ‘Values and duties independent from what anyone believes’. Do you agree?

          Assuming you do, let’s replace “Objective moral values and duties” in #2 above with the actual definition. Namely, “Values and duties independent from what anyone believes”

          Now we have:

          2. Values and duties independent from what anyone believes do exist.

          Everyone in the room agreeing does not in any way address the existence of values and duties that are independent from our beliefs. It only shows we agree.

          According to this statement “Values and duties independent from what anyone believes do exist”, either our beliefs (individually, collectively, or universally) are irrelevant (what anyone believes) or OMV are identical to our beliefs and their independence (Values and duties independent from) is irrelevant.

          If our beliefs are irrelevant, then the consensus of belief means nothing and there’s no reason to assume you’re discussing an actual OMV. Whatever ‘ground’ you may or may not have is irrelevant because no one’s determined the objective truth of the belief.

          If the independence of OMV are irrelevant, then no outside source is necessary and all you need to determine objectivity is consensus of belief. This is what subjectivists claim, that the consensus determines the standard for morality.

          By claiming you can go on to discuss the grounding for your beliefs just because everyone’s in agreement you seem to be assuming that consensus equals objectivity. You can’t logically say OMV are independent from beliefs and then assume consensus of belief makes OMV. They are either independent or they’re not. Which is it?

          As for me, I do not believe “Values and duties independent from what anyone believes do exist”.

        • KarlUdy

          If our beliefs are irrelevant, then the consensus of belief means nothing and there’s no reason to assume you’re discussing an actual OMV. Whatever ‘ground’ you may or may not have is irrelevant because no one’s determined the objective truth of the belief.

          Not for the first time, you seem to have completely misunderstood that I don’t believe consensus implies objective moral values, and that is not the reason I brought up the consensus example.

          This is part of why I think we’re talking past each other.

        • KarlUdy

          You have fallen into the bad habit of seeing moral debates as involving only ONE issue. This is never the case.

          Actually that is not the case. I am choosing these examples for good reasons.

          I am sure that you do not really want to be an apologist for the actions of the Japanese Army in this case. I am also sure that they thought that what they were doing was a good choice (in fact this point is crucial to my argument).

          They are also very good at confusing the issue with clever wording. For example: baby torture. Christian moralists often say, “Torturing a baby for fun is always wrong.” Supposedly this is about the morality of baby torture, but it’s not. The qualifier “FOR FUN” inserts a second moral right into the discussion, the pursuit of happiness.

          The reason that such examples get picked is because they are trying to find an example where their audience will all agree on the moral wrongness of the act so that the discussion can centre around some issue other than whether that particular act is right or wrong. If you suggest that torture is wrong, then someone might give a counter-example where it is not clear that torture is wrong (eg a captured terrorist has hidden a bomb somewhere in a city). So they move to chid torture, but someone proposes another counter-example (presumably involving torture out of necessity, given how things are currently stated.) So we end up with “torturing children for fun” which presumably (and thankfully) no one has made a case for justifying so far.

          Personally I don’t like using the example of “torturing children for fun”. It seems so clumsy.

          But I also want to use examples where we can debate something other than whether a particular case is right or wrong. I think it is better to use real life examples, as they are real things that it matters to have opinions about. The most common real world example used is obviously the Nazis and the Jewish Holocaust. In this case it would be relevant. However, there are other issues that I believe can substitute, such as the forced recruitment of child soldiers (as by the LRA and others), child sex trafficking, and of course the Japanese Army and comfort women. If you really do want to take the position as an apologist for any of these issues, please be my guest. I find them morally indefensible, everyone else I know also does, but you would at least be consistent in your moral subjectivism.

          The big problem you get if all of these are morally defensible, is that you really are back at Dostoevsky’s “without God, all things are permissable.”

        • Kodie

          Under what conditions are you aware of that your clothes are made and your housewares, or the food you eat? Do you think morality is black and white or sometimes gray? Have you ever succeeded because you took advantage of someone else? Like, scoop someone’s taxi, or not tell the cashier there’s a mistake in your favor on the bill? Do you believe if good things happen to you then you must have done something to deserve it, or if something bad happens to someone, I mean as chance and not a consequence, that it’s what they deserve because you know they did something immoral (according to you)? Have you ever let someone else get blamed for something you were even partially responsible for? Maybe even let them get fired without speaking up? Have you ever failed to apologize to someone you, even accidentally, wronged? Do you listen politely while others tell racist, sexist, or homophobic jokes? What is the least thing you may have done and still felt remorse and guilt on the order of keeping you awake until you rectified it? In the light of day, did you actually, or did you just blow it off? Do you just get Jesus to forgive you and move on with your life?

        • avalon

          Karl,

          “I am also sure that they thought that what they were doing was a good choice (in fact this point is crucial to my argument).”

          Then you have failed to grasp my point, namely, in many moral situations one must break one moral principle to uphold another. Which moral principle one decides to uphold depends on how you weight the importance of each in any given situation. This makes moral values subjective.

          You may believe in not killing people, but you also believe in protecting your family, friends, or country. A situation may occur where you must choose one or the other. If you kill an intruder to protect your family that doesn’t mean you think killing is “good”. At best, it was necessary.

          This is my frustration with Christian moralists who claim the Nazis thought the Holocaust was morally “good”. Or the Japanese thought sex slavery was a good thing.

          “The most common real world example used is obviously the Nazis and the Jewish Holocaust. In this case it would be relevant.”

          I submit that the Nazis did not believe the Holocaust was a good thing. Here’s why: they kept it secret and lied about it to their own citizens. Even most rank-and-file soldiers didn’t know about it. Secrecy and lies indicate guilty actions. When someone does something they think is good they have no reason to hide it and every reason to proclaim it.

          “If you really do want to take the position as an apologist for any of these issues, please be my guest.”

          Like you, I suspect the man is making excuses. Unlike you, I recognize what moral issue he claims to be upholding (civil defense). I recognize that there are two issues involved and try to see what he’s choosing and why.

          avalon

        • KarlUdy

          Avalon,

          Then you have failed to grasp my point, namely, in many moral situations one must break one moral principle to uphold another.

          which is why I specifically said “good choice”. It is often only in a dilemma when you can tell what someone really values.

          This makes moral values subjective.

          In a sense, all of our moral choices are “subjective” because they are made from our particular point of view at a certain time in a certain situation. This does not mean that objective morality does not exist – it just means that sometimes it is not clear to us. However, it often is clear.

          This is my frustration with Christian moralists who claim the Nazis thought the Holocaust was morally “good”. Or the Japanese thought sex slavery was a good thing.

          The Nazis (at least those in the Wannsee conference) decided that it was better to kill all the Jews than to have them live in Germany, better than sterilising them so that they would die out within a generation in Germany – in fact, even better than expelling all of them. The Japanese thought it was better to enslave foreign women for sex for their soldiers than risk their soldiers rioting because they didn’t have enough … sex? fun? entertainment? what?

          Have I put the situations correctly? Would you regard either of these positions as morally defensible?

          Like you, I suspect the man is making excuses.

          The question is, do you believe his excuses are valid? Do those reasons excuse that behaviour? Admittedly some excuses are valid for some behaviour, and most actions will be excusable under certain conditions. But that does not mean that any behaviour is excusable, if you find the right excuse for it.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          avalon:

          they kept it secret and lied about it to their own citizens.

          There are YouTube videos in which German citizens from local towns are forced by American commanders to tour the concentration camps in their back yards so they can see what their government was doing.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/ BobSeidensticker

      Karl:

      This is not the first time you have trotted out your assertion that we have moral instincts. There is no moral instinct.

      This is where you offer your explanation that explains the agreed-to facts far better than mine. Ball’s in your court.

    • avalon

      Karl,

      “We do have moral intuitions, but I’m not sure if you want to go there,
      because being intuitions they are not automatic physical or
      physiological responses (which is what an instinct is), but rather
      responses that come via our mind, which is not going to lead to
      evolution as an explanation…”

      Evolution explains it very well:

      “Moral judgment is caused by quick moral intuitions and is followed (when needed) by slow, ex post facto moral reasoning”

      “…intuition occurs quickly, effortlessly and automatically, such that the outcome but not the process is accessible to consciousness, whereas reasoning occurs more slowly, requires some effort, and involves at least
      some step that are accessible to consciousness”
      “humans relied on intuitive reasoning to survive before we evolved
      language based reasoning skills. Because the emotional region of the brain’s ability to make effortless intuitive decisions is a contributing factor to human survivability it was a integral part of our evolution and our current state.”
      (Dr. Jonathan Haidt)

      As to why we would view these intuitions as objective:

      “The objectivity ascribed to judgements which arise from our unconscience as intuitive knowledge comes from the similarity of the mental constitution of men.”

      “Our moral consciousness is part of our sub-conscience, which we cannot change as we please. We approve or disapprove because we cannot do otherwise.”

      “Owing to their exceptional importance for human welfare, the facts of the moral consciousness are emphasized in much higher degree than would be ordinary subjective facts.”

      “As clearness and distinctness of the conception of an object easily produces the belief in it’s truth, so the intensity of a moral emotion makes him who feels it disposed to objectivise the moral estimate to which it gives rise, in other words, to assign to it universal validity.”(Edward Westermarck 1906)

      These natural explanations are rejected by theists who claim that our moral intuitions are revelations from God:

      “The simple, intuitive point of the argument from conscience is that everyone in the world knows, deep down, that he is absolutely obligated to be and do good, and this absolute obligation could come only from God. Thus everyone knows God, however obscurely, by this moral intuition, which we usually call conscience. Conscience is the voice of God in the soul. Like all arguments for the existence of God, this one proves only a small part of what we know God to be by divine revelation. But this part is significantly more than the arguments from nature reveal about God because this argument has richer data, a richer starting point.”

      Peter Kreeft

      So, the whole question of objective/subjective moral values comes down to the source of our moral intuitions. Is it our brain (a natural explanation) or God (a supernatural explanation). If you believe God provides our moral intuitions then many questions remain:

      1. Why provide only moral intuitions and not ALL intuitions (non-moral intuition being often wrong)?

      2. Why don’t all men receive the same moral intuitions? How do you explain men who don’t have any conscience?

      3. What is the means of transmission from God to our brain? If moral intuitions don’t originate in our brain, how do they get there?

      avalon

      • KarlUdy

        Thanks for your reply Avalon. I’m pleased that we don’t have to wade through the “instinct or not” debate.

        I think you have summed up the issue nicely.

        Some quick answers to your questions:

        1) Our moral intuitions are also sometimes wrong.
        2) Humans are plastic and dynamic. Everything we do and experience shapes us. I don’t believe anyone is without a conscience, but I do believe that it can be suppressed.
        3) I’m not sure why this is a problem. It could be an interesting question, but I’m not sure how the mechanics of this is important.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/ BobSeidensticker

          Karl:

          It could be an interesting question, but I’m not sure how the mechanics of this is important.

          Avalon’s question underscores the limitations of the “God did it!” explanation. We’re no wiser as a result. How does he do it? What’s the physics? Is this laws of physics we just haven’t discovered yet, or is conscience a continual miracle by God, always violating physics? Does this apply just to humans, or does it apply to other animals (which ones and why?)? Etc.

        • avalon

          Hi Bob,

          Thought you might need a bit of comic relief:

          “Searching for some way to capture the idea that moral properties and facts inhabit our world and exert a genuine influence on us, Ronald Dworkin describes a universe that houses among its numerous particles of energy and matter, some special particles—morons—whose energy and momentum establish fields that at once constitute the
          morality or immorality, or virtue or vice, of particular human acts and institutions and also interact in some way with human nervous systems so as to make people aware of the morality or immorality of the virtue or vice (“Objectivity and Truth: You’d Better Believe It,” Philosophy and Public Affairs (1996), pp. 87 – 139.”

          avalon

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/ BobSeidensticker

          avalon: So that’s the physical explanation of morality! Nice!

        • avalon

          Hi Karl,

          “1) Our moral intuitions are also sometimes wrong.”

          Are you saying that moral values exist objectively (ie. separate from human minds) but there’s no way to reliably access them? It seems useless to say something exists objectively but can not be discovered objectively.

          ” I don’t believe anyone is without a conscience, but I do believe that it can be suppressed.”

          Brain scans and genetics prove this is indeed true. Are you familiar with the psychopath gene? Or the brain scans of sociopaths which isolate the areas of the brain responsible for empathy? These and other discoveries point to natural causes for our moral intuitions.

          “3) I’m not sure why this is a problem. It could be an interesting
          question, but I’m not sure how the mechanics of this is important.”

          The problem is that objective moral values aren’t just said to exist, they are also claimed to motivate us. They attract us to the good and repel us from the evil. They exert and influence on us in some way. This motivating force demands an explanation.

          If, as I claim, our moral intuitions come from our brain then this motivation is explained by biology and physics. But if, as Kreeft claims, our moral intuitions have an outside source then a transference is necessary and proving this mechanism would prove his claim of an outside source for intuitions. This makes it more than just an interesting question.

      • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/ BobSeidensticker

        avalon: Thanks for the input. The distinction is said much better than I have done.

        I would add to your list of questions: Why imagine that moral intuitions are objective and accessible when we don’t agree? I’m not talking about the psychopath outliers. I’m talking about thoughtful, sensible people being dramatically opposed on issues like abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, and so on.

        It’s a sloppy reality, and the natural explanation does a far better job. (Unless you want to paint God as an inept bungler.)

  • avalon

    “Sure, God could’ve made us so we wouldn’t do bad things, but we’d be robots without free will.”

    Theists may want to reconsider making this argument. A world without evil wouldn’t mean a complete lack of free will. Given the wide variety of good things a man can do in his lifetime (plus all the neutral things, neither good nor bad), it seems clear there’d still be a multitude of free will choices to be made in a world devoid of evil. The only choices which would disappear would be evil ones. So the theists seem to be saying that free will must include the right to choose evil. But if that’s their position, why insist that a person who chooses to do evil must be punished? Why punish a man for exercising his rights?

    avalon

  • Greg G.

    Why is it that apologists don’t get The Problem of Evil and The Problem of Suffering? You can use either to show that there cannot be a god who is both omnipotent and good. They respond that it doesn’t prove that there is no god and go right back to believing in a good omnipotent god.

    It’s been said that if The Problem of Evil doesn’t keep the theist up at night, he/ she doesn’t understand The Problem of Evil.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1374438730 Greg King

    Bob: Yes, I think he his childish, or childlike. Why? Because he named called, or labels atheists whiners because of an assertion some have made. For example, Mr. Lennox said, “atheists whine about the Crusades and the Inquisition…” I think to label anyone’s assertion, because you don’t like it, whining, is immature, childish. If he didn’t use the word whining, then never mind…lol.

    I will take the bate and be distracted by his “whining” assertion and say this: Mr. Lennox, quit whining about whining.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/ BobSeidensticker

      Just to be clear, only the bits in quotes are exact quotes. Everything else is authentic, though it’s paraphrased. I think “whiners” was my word, not his.

  • Compuholic

    A prime example of what religion can do to otherwise really intelligent people. Now imagine what it can do to people who don’t fare as well and you have a truly scary scenario…

  • MNb

    @Michael ea: my point was clear, or so I thought. If marxism, especially as put in practice in the SU under Stalin, China under Mao and North-Korea have religious apects nobody can blame atheism for its atrocities. There is another point I forgot to make. It’s silly to blame Jehovah Witnesses for the Crusades. For the same reason it’s silly to hold atheist democrats responsible for the Gulag.

  • primenumbers

    “Sure, God could’ve made us so we wouldn’t do bad things, but we’d be robots without free will.” – therefore your God is a robot without free will. Nice argument there, theist.

  • VF

    Every once in a while I am given scientific proofs of God. This week the little boy next door who use to hang out at my house (boy scout science badge etc.) and then grew up and went to Penn State sent me this statistical proof of a “higher power of consciousness”. Although I am a Statistician the proof did not make much sense to me. Equations would have helped. I do know that one has a multi comparison problem if you transform a statistic too many times, which I suspect lies unmentioned here. Does this proof make any sense to you?

    and .

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      VF: It doesn’t. First, I’m not sure I have the URL correct. I think it’s this. If that’s it, it’s way too tangential from a conventional brief apologetic to get into.

  • connorwood

    I’m sorry, but your claim that Marx was complimenting religion with his “opiate of the masses” passage is very, very wrong. Eliminating religion was, for both Marx and the Communist leaders around the world who cited him, a fundamentally central element of the transition to a socialized economic system. In Marx’s thought, religion defused the proletariat’s motivating sense of injustice and thus was a crucial ingredient in prevent the uprising of the oppressed classes. You absolutely HAVE to get rid of religion in order to start the revolution in Marxist thought.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Connor: I’m not saying that he didn’t want to get rid of religion. I’m saying that, in context, “opium of the masses” was a compliment.
      Opium is medicine. When you’re in pain, it’s really helpful. But it addresses the symptom, not the underlying problem. And that was the issue from Marx’s viewpoint.

      • connorwood

        That’s partly true, but religion wasn’t just a palliative for Marx. To take your metaphor one step further, in Marxist thought religion isn’t just a medicine that only treats the symptoms. It’s a medicine that, in treating the symptoms, makes the patient completely forget the disease. This is why the elimination of religion is so fundamental to communist methodology.

        The real relevance of his question, of course, is for your assertion that Stalin and other communist dictators outlawed churches just because those churches competed with the state for power. Your underlying claim is that the motivations for Soviet and communist oppression of religion were purely political. But this claim is incorrect, full stop. The communist rejection of religion was not just a convenient strategic move for consolidating power; it was grounded, from the very beginning, in Marxist ideology that equated religion with the willful blinding of the oppressed masses. There was a significant ideological grounding for Communist opposition to religion.

        In other words, atheism is no more tangential to Communism than Christianity was to the Crusades – it’s central. To pretend otherwise is blatant misreading of history. Sorry to be harsh, but I had to weigh in on this one.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Connor:

          We’re dancing around the issue. Marx said:

          Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

          This is a compliment.

          There was a significant ideological grounding for Communist opposition to religion.

          Then blame Communism. You’ll have a hard time finding “In the name of atheism …” behind any pronouncement of Stalin.

        • connorwood

          I have never heard anyone else, ever, call this passage a “compliment” to religion. The only way one can do so is by completely ignoring Marx’s other writings and context. Here are the very next two lines following the quote you selected:

          “The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions.”

          This is not complimentary. Eliminating religion – which is illusory and thus misleading, according to Marx – is absolutely necessary in order to inspire the proletariat to throw off their chains. Any other interpretation of Marx’s attitude toward religion is simply unsupportable by the texts in question.

          Thus, atheism may not have been the banner under which Communism spread, but it was nothing like tangential to the Communist project; you can’t separate Communism from atheism. Your basic objective, of course, is to try to de-implicate atheism in Communistic abuses, but the only way you can do that is by ignoring the reality of Communism, which centrally includes anti-religious ideology.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Connor:

          I have never heard anyone else, ever, call this passage a “compliment” to religion.

          We must travel in different circles.

          Eliminating religion – which is illusory and thus misleading, according to Marx – is absolutely necessary in order to inspire the proletariat to throw off their chains. Any other interpretation of Marx’s attitude toward religion is simply unsupportable by the texts in question.

          Marx wants to treat the problem rather than imagine it away because we’re treating the symptom with religion. Similarly, if you were a doctor, you’d prefer to treat the problem instead of the symptom. Nevertheless, until a treatment comes along, treating the symptom can be pretty good.

          Are we quibbling over definitions here?

          you can’t separate Communism from atheism.

          I have no intention of doing so. I’m simply trying to figure out cause and effect.

          Your basic objective, of course, is to try to de-implicate atheism in Communistic abuses, but the only way you can do that is by ignoring the reality of Communism, which centrally includes anti-religious ideology.

          My basic objective is to follow the facts accurately.

          If you get hit on the head with a hammer, do you blame the hammer or the guy holding it?

        • connorwood

          I can see we are going to make no headway with one another. Believe me, there are no scholars of Marxism who would claim that Marx was complimentary to religion. He wasn’t. His position was unequivocally anti-religious and Feuerbachian. I wish you were willing to modify your position in response to a well-informed critique. But since this is probably not in the cards, I will wish you a good day, and invite you to visit my own Patheos blog, Science On Religion, where I am quite sure you will find much to critique in my own work. Best, Connor

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Connor:

          His position was unequivocally anti-religious

          So Marx has absolutely nothing positive to say about religion? It’s a universal bad, from start to finish?

        • connorwood

          I think the best and fairest rendering of Marx’s attitude would be that he had genuine sympathy for religious people and saw religion as an understandable reaction to horrific material conditions. But – especially in his later work – he also had a strong conviction that religion needed to be eliminated, outright, in order to wake people up to their true condition. For Marx religion was ultimately an illusion, a Feuerbachian projection of people’s inherent capacities which, being displaced onto a divine facade, actually alienated people from those very capacities. So, yes, religion was, in Marx’s final analysis, a bad thing.

          To sum up, here is a quote from Lenin to illustrate the centrality of atheism to the 20th-century Communist movement:

          “Religion is the opium of the people: this saying of Marx is the cornerstone of the entire ideology of Marxism about religion. All modern religions and churches, all and of every kind of religious organizations are always considered by Marxism as the organs of bourgeois reaction, used for the protection of the exploitation and the stupefaction of the working class.”

          Lenin and other Communist leaders were very clear on the centrality of atheism to the Communist project. It was, and is, one of the basic cornerstones of Marxist thought.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Connor:

          Still seems to me that distilling down that passage by Marx into “Religion is 100% bad; not a gosh-darn thing good about it” isn’t an accurate rendering of his position here. But I have nothing new to offer on this point.

          Let’s move on to the more interesting point

          Lenin and other Communist leaders were very clear on the centrality of atheism to the Communist project. It was, and is, one of the basic cornerstones of Marxist thought.

          Got it. But this doesn’t clarify the cause and effect that I’m trying to figure out. Is my hammer analogy (above) off target?

        • connorwood

          I think it is, yes. The cause-and-effect relationship simply isn’t a neat linear chain here. Think feedback loops instead. Atheism is primary to Communism, as Lenin tells us above. Communism destroys local communities and oppresses nations in favor of a massive (inefficient and corrupt) bureaucracy. Life under Communism is frustrating and bleak. So who is ultimately at fault – Marx? Communism? Atheism? The answer is all these elements, plus the personalities of Communist dictators and their ambitions, plus the lifestyles of local peoples. If you want to ask how big a role atheism plays in this story about feedback loops, the answer is one of the top two or three. The anti-religious ideology within Marxist political philosophy is one of the most central drivers of the entire process.

          In the same way, Christianity plays a central role in the brutal Spanish conquest of South America, but it’s not the only role. There was clearly a major lust for gold and silver on the European Continent (in fact there is good evidence to suggest that massive influx of South America silver, especially, routed through Spain was large enough to essentially trigger the commercial flowering of the 17th century). There were imperialist ambitions on the part of the Spanish monarchs. But at the same time, priests and monastics really were there on the front lines, trying to (and sometimes succeeding) convert the natives to Catholicism. I think we can assume that their desire to convert indigenous people was usually genuine, and so Christian evangelizing ideology really does play a major role in the story about the Spanish conquest.

          In neither case does it make sense to say “This is a story about Christianity (or atheism) screwing things up for everybody.” In both cases it is very accurate to say “Christianity (or atheism) was very central to this horrific story about some people doing really unpleasant things to other people.”

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Connor: You’ve lost me. What can we lay at the feet of atheism? Seems to me that the hammer analogy is very apt: yes, it was the hammer that actually hit you on the head, but it’s hard to blame it when it was swung by someone else. Yes, it was the official policy of atheism that shut down the churches (or whatever), but why blame atheism? Blame instead whoever put the policy in place.

          So who is ultimately at fault – Marx? Communism? Atheism? The answer is all these elements, plus the personalities of Communist dictators and their ambitions, plus the lifestyles of local peoples. If you want to ask how big a role atheism plays in this story about feedback loops, the answer is one of the top two or three.

          The atheist says: I have no god belief. That’s it. No policy decisions flow from this.

          In the same way, Christianity plays a central role in the brutal Spanish conquest of South America

          The Christian, by contrast, says quite a bit more. The Great Commission has been interpreted in lots of ways. The atheist, by contrast, has no infallible holy book.

          In neither case does it make sense to say “This is a story about Christianity (or atheism) screwing things up for everybody.”

          You treat Christianity and atheism as symmetric forces. I don’t see the symmetry.

        • connorwood

          If you don’t want to “blame atheism” for the various abuses of Communism, and instead want to blame whoever put the policy in place, then don’t blame “Christianity” for the Spanish Conquest. Blame Isabella, Ferdinand, and De Soto.

          What I’ve been trying to say is that the despicable policy objectives of the Soviet Union and other Communist states are just as inextricably bound up with their atheist ideology as the imperialist abuses of European states were with their Christian commitments. You’ve been trying to de-implicate atheism from Soviet atrocities, while still very much blaming Christianity for European ones. In my view, you can’t have your cake and eat it, too – either ideologies and religious commitments are implicated in the behaviors of states and societies, or they aren’t.

          Christianity and atheism are “symmetric forces” in this context because they both represent ideological systems that center on a Tillichian ultimate concern. You can dispute that characterization, and I suspect you will, but the fact remains that atheism was a major part of the central Communist ideology, and it is very much implicated in the horrific actions of Stalin, Lenin, Mao, etc., as much as you would like to insist otherwise.

          To return to your metaphor, you contest that atheism is a “hammer” and the real culprit is the guy who wields it. A better analogy would be that atheism is a book the guy read once about how you need to hit people with hammers in order to show them how oppressed they are by the bourgeoisie and liberate them to manifest their own potentials. Is the book at fault? No, the guy is. But you still wish he hadn’t read that book.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Connor:

          If you don’t want to “blame atheism” for the various abuses of Communism, and instead want to blame whoever put the policy in place, then don’t blame “Christianity” for the Spanish Conquest. Blame Isabella, Ferdinand, and De Soto.

          Atheism and Christianity are parallel here? They both drive human actions? I think we’re defining things differently.

          Cause and effect is what we’re talking about. Yes, I see how Christianity can cause actions. “Go forth and make disciples of all nations” and all that. There is no atheist equivalent.

          You’ve been trying to de-implicate atheism from Soviet atrocities, while still very much blaming Christianity for European ones.

          Now you’ve got it!

          In my view, you can’t have your cake and eat it, too – either ideologies and religious commitments are implicated in the behaviors of states and societies, or they aren’t.

          So you think atheism is an ideology? Call it what you will, but it sure ain’t the same kind of thing that Christianity is.

          atheism was a major part of the central Communist ideology, and it is very much implicated in the horrific actions of Stalin, Lenin, Mao, etc., as much as you would like to insist otherwise.

          Yes, people make this claim. No, they’re not correct in doing so.

          you contest that atheism is a “hammer” and the real culprit is the guy who wields it. A better analogy would be that atheism is a book the guy read once about how you need to hit people with hammers in order to show them how oppressed they are by the bourgeoisie and liberate them to manifest their own potentials.

          Fascinating. I’ve not read this book. Summarize it for me. (As an atheist, I’m in a pretty good position to tell you if your characterization of the atheist manifesto is on target.)

        • connorwood

          I don’t see how you can read Lenin’s quote above and not see that atheism as an ideology was a driver of his and other Communist leader’s actions. I have done what I can to show that how Christianity and atheism are implicated in various atrocities throughout history is much, much more complicated than you have depicted. As much as you would like it to be, Christianity’s evangelistic impulse was not the major impetus behind colonization and Europe’s rapacious behavior toward the world. Greed was. Nonetheless, Christianity certainly played a part in justifying these actions, and even in inspiring them. Christianity is thus very much on the hook, although not quite as much as other factors. Atheism, meanwhile, clearly does function as an ideological driver in Communist history, despite your protestations to the contrary. Note that I have brought in textual evidence that supports my claim, while the only text you have cited was egregiously misinterpreted. If you don’t believe me about that, email literally any professor in the world who focuses on Marx and ask whether it is legitimate to describe that passage as primarily constituting a “compliment” to religion, as you originally claimed in your article. Note that my description of things includes nuance and room for multiple attributions. Yours does not, and apparently you would like to keep it that way. So, having understood that your goal is not to encounter new facts and adjust your view accordingly, but instead to advocate for a particular, and in my opinion not very historically or theoretically informed, understanding of what atheism is (I note that you did not reply to my description of Marxist atheism as representing a Tillichian ultimate concern) I will say good day once more. Thank you for the debate, and very best wishes for your blog.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Connor:

          I have done what I can to show that how Christianity and atheism are implicated in various atrocities throughout history is much, much more complicated than you have depicted.

          And despite your efforts to obfuscate, it’s still not that complicated. “I have no god belief” doesn’t drive any action. Doesn’t say that I’ll do good things; doesn’t say that I’ll do bad things. In fact, it doesn’t even say that I won’t go to church (I do sometimes—church is interesting).

          Contrast this with “I follow the dictates in the Bible.” I’ll grant you that it’s not clear what that actually means (the Bible follower might hold up signs that say “God hates fags,” he might advocate for slavery, or he might advocate that we put care for the poor and disadvantaged as society’s primary goal) but it can certainly drive many actions. The atheist has no equivalent holy book. The atheist has no creeds or dogma or dictates.

          As much as you would like it to be, Christianity’s evangelistic impulse was not the major impetus behind colonization and Europe’s rapacious behavior toward the world.

          I never said that it was. (Are you confusing this conversation with one you had with someone else?)

          Atheism, meanwhile, clearly does function as an ideological driver in Communist h istory, despite your protestations to the contrary.

          It’s all cause and effect. What caused what? You’ve still not shown that atheism wasn’t simply a consequence of communism. Yes, it was the hammer that hit you, but the blame must be put on the guy swinging the hammer.

          Note that I have brought in textual evidence that supports my claim, while the only text you have cited was egregiously misinterpreted.

          That’s a bit harsh. Your point, which I am happy to accept, is that Marx overall thought that religion was a bad thing that, for the good of society, needed to be eliminated. And that’s not what I was talking about. It’s hard to draw that sweeping conclusion from just this one passage, which is all I was talking about.

          Note that my description of things includes nuance and room for multiple attributions.

          I missed the nuance. “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions” isn’t equivalent to “religion is 100% bad with no redeeming qualities.” At least to me. But perhaps your mileage will vary.

          I note that you did not reply to my description of Marxist atheism as representing a Tillichian ultimate concern

          Was that on topic? Seemed like it wasn’t.

          I will say good day once more.

          Good day. Thanks for your input.

        • connorwood

          You’re right, that was harsh, and I apologize. That’s what I get for replying to comments before I finish my first cup of Earl Grey.

          Our basic disagreement is over the nature of atheism. You characterize it as a purely negative lack of religious belief: atheism is what life is when you subtract belief in God. This is not really a supportable position; religion isn’t just about God beliefs, as generations of sociologists and anthropologists have shown us. It’s also about ritual, practice, and formatting structures to guide relationships within communities. Atheists generally tend to extract themselves from these webs of ritual and social interdependencies as well as deny belief in God. A good example is found in the fact that atheists tend not to enjoy family reunions as much as religious people, and go to fewer of them. They also tend to be much more individualistic, to participate less in team sports, etc. Atheists also tend to share certain interests and values, including humanism, science, utilitarian approaches to morality, etc. This is all to show that atheism is a positive assertion of certain values and lifeways that are actually (very often) perceived by atheists themselves as being of ultimate concern. This is why I brought in Tillich, and why that comment was relevant: you asked me why I was describing Christianity and atheism in equivalent terms, and I was explaining the reason.

          The reason I brought in European conquests was because your original article was responding to Lennox, who was in turn responding to the accusations often made against Christianity that it was responsible for Crusades, Inquisition, etc. Perhaps the European conquest of the New World (which was carried out in the name of Christianity) was too tangential to these events, in which case I apologize. But I think Lennox would agree that this was an example of precisely the kind of accusation against Christianity that he was responding to.

          Finally, I don’t think the question was whether Marx thought that religion was 100% bad. He didn’t, although his final analysis was very, very anti-religion. Your original quote implied, quite strongly, that the anti-religious strands in Marxism were tangential or unimportant. This claim is false, and was the reason I commented originally. The relevance of my quibble is that atheism is, in my view, quite central to the Communist project and, being a positive assertion of values rather than merely a negative absence of God beliefs, is quite readily implicated in Soviet tyrannies. This also refutes your claim that atheism was a consequence of Communism; it clearly was not. Atheism preceded the institution of Communist regimes and is traceable right back to the very source of Marxist thinking. Atheism was there at the beginning.

          Thanks again, and best wishes. Connor

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Connor:

          That’s what I get for replying to comments before I finish my first cup of Earl Grey.

          :-)

          You characterize [atheism] as a purely negative lack of religious belief: atheism is what life is when you subtract belief in God.

          Even this is grander than my phrasing, but, yes, I think you’ve hit on one of our difficulties.

          religion isn’t just about God beliefs, as generations of sociologists and anthropologists have shown us.

          Fair enough. But it remains the case that atheism is simply the lack of a god belief. Atheists may (or may not) value community, ritual, and so on, just like a religious person does (or doesn’t).

          Atheists generally tend to extract themselves from these webs of ritual and social interdependencies as well as deny belief in God.

          You must hang out with different atheists than I do. I was at a wedding just last week. I get it—ritual and community are valuable. In fact, with meetup.com and similar groups, you’re seeing many atheists trying to recreate the community that they miss from their Christian days.

          A good example is found in the fact that atheists tend not to enjoy family reunions as much as religious people, and go to fewer of them.

          Huh?! I have definitely not read the study that proves this curious factoid!

          Atheists also tend to share certain interests and values, including humanism, science, utilitarian approaches to morality, etc.

          Yes—they share these interests with many Christians as well.

          As an aside, one question atheists need to answer is how to position themselves. Atheist, agnostic, Bright, freethinker, skeptic, humanist, and so on. I happen to like “atheist” simply because that’s one of the few categories that a Christian can’t call himself. Christians can call themselves “humanists” just like I can.

          This is all to show that atheism is a positive assertion of certain values and lifeways

          Careful. Let’s let people define their own labels and bins.

          This is not what atheism means to me. I realize that this is getting boring, but atheism = lack of a god belief. That’s it. Others may define it differently.

          you asked me why I was describing Christianity and atheism in equivalent terms, and I was explaining the reason.

          You and Tillich can define words any way you want. But on my blog, it’s good to know how I define “atheism.”

          responding to the accusations often made against Christianity that it was responsible for Crusades, Inquisition, etc

          “Christians are responsible for the Inquisition” is an argument that I rarely use, probably because I see it similar to how you do. And I didn’t use it here.

          I don’t think the question was whether Marx thought that religion was 100% bad. He didn’t …

          OK. It would’ve helped if you’d made this clear (in response to my “So Marx has absolutely nothing positive to say about religion? It’s a universal bad, from start to finish?”) 10 comments above.

          his final analysis was very, very anti-religion.

          OK.

          Your original quote implied, quite strongly, that the anti-religious strands in Marxism were tangential or unimportant.

          I was focused on one widely known statement by Marx and trying to show how the popular interpretation (religion dulls your senses) is wrong.

          atheism is, in my view, quite central to the Communist project and, being a positive assertion of values rather than merely a negative absence of God beliefs, is quite readily implicated in Soviet tyrannies.

          Then if it’s a positive assertion of values, it can’t be atheism as I’ve defined it.

          You can define “atheism” any way you want. You can say “atheism” = “the intense dislike of pickles” if you want and we could proceed from that point with a common vocabulary. But that’s not how I define it, and it’s not how most atheists that I’m familiar with define it.

          This also refutes your claim that atheism was a consequence of Communism; it clearly was not.

          Expand on this. You can’t be saying that the Soviet Union was officially atheist before it was Communist. Are you saying that atheism influenced Marx? I have no idea what your point is.

        • connorwood

          It took me a day to dig up the source about family reunions and atheism: Bainbridge 2005, “Atheism,” in the Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion. The data is from a survey called Survey2001, sponsored by NatGeo.

          Bainbridge’s results align pretty neatly with nearly all other research out there on the sociology of atheism. Atheists tend to be much less interconnected in webs of mutual social obligation than religious people. They are less likely to be married, less likely to have children, more likely to be well-off and well-educated; Bainbridge’s research also showed that they were less likely to report confiding their difficulties in close friends or in expecting friends to be there for them. In short, atheists are generally positioned socially in such a way that they do not depend interpersonally on many other people and have relatively few people depending on them. Your scientific instincts surely tell you that your own anecdotal counterexample about attending a wedding does not contradict the statistical evidence; saying so would constitute a logical fallacy. If you could find concrete statistical or demographic evidence that said that atheists were just as socially integrated as religious people, then that would count as a legitimate argument against my claim and Bainbridge’s. However, I am very confident no such evidence exists. You can certainly try to prove me wrong; I’d be delighted to see hard evidence that atheists are just as socially integrated as religious people. But your evidence needs to be of the same kind as mine in order to count as a refutation.

          To go further, a Durkheimian reading of religion in society would predict that atheists’ attempts to reproduce the kind of tight social bonding within their own communities are, by and large, unlikely to succeed. It is the ritual, the practice, the shared mythology and symbols, and the high thresholds of investment, as well as standards for exclusion, that make religious communities work. Without this basic social technology, communities are prone to ephemerality and lack of robustness in the face of any conflict or external challenge. (Incidentally, this Durkheimian model could be seen to account for the persistent weakness of the social fabric in post-Communist countries, where nearly all of the above religious technologies were outlawed or forced underground for two or three generations.)

          The upshot is that your definition of atheism is 1:) questionable, sociologically, since atheism is reliably correlated with a whole host of other behavioral, cognitive, social, and personality factors; and 2:) pretty thin, even if it passes muster conceptually. It’s a bit like saying that the sole defining characteristic of a car is the internal combustion apparatus. It may be a sine qua non, but it’s certainly not the only relevant element within the concept “car.” In fact, an engine sitting on the ground by itself is very definitely not a car.

          Finally, in the context of Communism, yes, atheism influenced Marx. That’s not the way I would prefer to put it, since it reifies the concept of atheism in a pretty anachronistic way, but for your purposes it’s true. Marx was heavily influenced by Ludwig Feuerbach, whose book “The Essence of Christianity” propounded a materialist atheism that characterized religion as a projection of man’s inherent capacities onto a divine symbol – thus divesting humans of their ability to actually manifest those capacities in their real lives. Without Feuerbach, there would have no Marxist thought as we know it. Without Marxist thought, no Communism. Without Communism, no Cultural Revolution, no Leninism, no eradication of local cultures across Eastern Europe and Asia in the name of historical materialism and proletariat revolution. See where I’m coming from? You’re correct to say that Communism and institutionalized atheism arrived in, say, Russia at the same time. But Communism itself never would have arisen without the atheistic foundation that Feuerbach, Marx, and Engels laid.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Connor:

          It took me a day to dig up the source about family reunions and atheism: Bainbridge 2005, “Atheism,” in the Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion.

          Here’s the link.

          The upshot is that your definition of atheism is 1:) questionable, sociologically, since atheism is reliably correlated with a whole host of other behavioral, cognitive, social, and personality factors

          Huh? I’m simply telling you what the word “atheism” means. Whatever hideous baggage people who identify as atheists bring isn’t relevant to what the word means.

          Somehow we’re talking about different things here.

          Finally, in the context of Communism, yes, atheism influenced Marx.

          Christianity and Islam are in the same bin because they are both an extensive set of beliefs with traditions, history, and holy writings. Atheism, by contrast, has none of these things and doesn’t fit in this bin.

          I could see the logic in “Islam influenced Marx,” but what does it even mean to say that “atheism influenced Marx”? He may have been an atheist, he may have been attracted to the worldview one gets by discarding Christianity, but what is there to influence anyone?

          You imagine atheism a force behind Communism, and I’m completely missing your point.

          Marx was heavily influenced by Ludwig Feuerbach

          Feuerbach influenced Marx? Now that I could believe. But with atheism, there’s no there there. Atheism is a conclusion; it’s not a dogma or doctrine.

          See where I’m coming from?

          I do. Damn that Feuerbach! He’s the cause of this whole mess.

          But Communism itself never would have arisen without the atheistic foundation that Feuerbach, Marx, and Engels laid.

          And you still haven’t addressed the problem: showing that the philosophy of atheism (which doesn’t exist) was a driver for anything. If Communism had the trait of atheism, sure, I can buy that. But who’s driving whom?

  • bob cauler

    Bob, your answers to Lennox seem more like opinions than reasonable answers..

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      You could be right. If you find specific points where my argument or complaint doesn’t hold up, point that out.

  • Pingback: hefalimp cardijon

  • Pingback: www.blucarpet.com

  • Pingback: cialis 20mg lilly

  • Pingback: commander cialis us usa en ligne

  • Pingback: online slots

  • Pingback: cialis 20mg acheter

  • Pingback: visit the website,

  • Pingback: Browse This Site

  • Pingback: macarons

  • Pingback: cialis naturale in erboristeria

  • Pingback: achat cialis en ligne belgique

  • Pingback: hardcore goat sex

  • Pingback: do you last longer with a condom

  • Pingback: Homepage

  • Pingback: tadalafil compresse

  • Pingback: cheap twitter promotion

  • Pingback: penis enlargement pills

  • Pingback: buy youtube likes

  • Pingback: xlovecam hack tool 2013

  • Pingback: Vape shop

  • Pingback: cialis password index

  • Pingback: bedroom furniture online

  • Pingback: Begum Law Firm

  • Pingback: New Songs List

  • Pingback: check these

  • Pingback: Detroit

  • Pingback: testinate 250

  • Pingback: cialis 20 mg originale

  • Pingback: roz grammes

  • Pingback: Penis enlargement

  • Pingback: escort in Sydney

  • Pingback: westwood college

  • Pingback: kitchens

  • Pingback: www.law.fsu.edu

  • Pingback: cupboards

  • Pingback: hills home market reviews

  • Pingback: rundum zürich

  • Pingback: Flight Tickets

  • Pingback: cialise utilisation

  • Pingback: Richard McArthur Reid Real Estate

  • Pingback: Richard McArthur Realtor

  • Pingback: Arganollie

  • Pingback: best wireless speakers

  • Pingback: raptor bumper

  • Pingback: Christian boarding schools

  • Pingback: K3vin Envoy

  • Pingback: Crime News

  • Pingback: mortgage broker

  • Pingback: cialis 30 mg

  • Pingback: cult education

  • Pingback: distante rutiere

  • Pingback: edward maldonado

  • Pingback: bay area garage door

  • Pingback: online dating i love cats

  • Pingback: how to find success in online dating

  • Pingback: booter

  • Pingback: buy likes

  • Pingback: dbz movie times of grace

  • Pingback: dbz movie

  • Pingback: payday loans

  • Pingback: emily bronte pen name

  • Pingback: بفركس احتيال

  • Pingback: bus tours to new york city

  • Pingback: viagra online

  • Pingback: Mortgage company

  • Pingback: ford raptor front bumper

  • Pingback: Faucet Repair

  • Pingback: beachbody reviews

  • Pingback: see more

  • Pingback: Process Servers in Illinois

  • Pingback: Recovery

  • Pingback: wordpress theme design

  • Pingback: custom wordpress themes

  • Pingback: menoquil

  • Pingback: restore my vision today bonus

  • Pingback: Canon Camera

  • Pingback: network

  • Pingback: seo providers

  • Pingback: click here

  • Pingback: free classified ad sites

  • Pingback: renta de autos en cancun

  • Pingback: Mayweather vs Maidana 2

  • Pingback: mercedes benz chicago

  • Pingback: Criminal Lawyer

  • Pingback: Criminal Lawyer

  • Pingback: bladder cancer cells reason.

  • Pingback: volkswagen jetta tdi

  • Pingback: alternative medicine

  • Pingback: scentsy.com

  • Pingback: eye test

  • Pingback: dark circles

  • Pingback: Serenity

  • Pingback: advertise property

  • Pingback: AARON kocourek

  • Pingback: Viagra Now

  • Pingback: online pharmacy

  • Pingback: FSBO Nashville TN

  • Pingback: rooms lisbon

  • Pingback: bitcoin casino

  • Pingback: santa maria homes

  • Pingback: Squirrel Removal Katy

  • Pingback: Whatsapp Hack

  • Pingback: bets10

  • Pingback: vente cialis generique

  • Pingback: anal

  • Pingback: paying for college debt

  • Pingback: pest control houston

  • Pingback: appliance repair near Yonkers NY

  • Pingback: Greenwich appliance repair

  • Pingback: Whatsapp status quotes

  • Pingback: Greenwich appliance repair

  • Pingback: juicy couture outlets

  • Pingback: vitamin store

  • Pingback: explanation

  • Pingback: sony projector lamp replacement

  • Pingback: data recovery mac

  • Pingback: data recovery guru

  • Pingback: online escorts

  • Pingback: dive

  • Pingback: Surprise appliance repair

  • Pingback: Games and softwares free download

  • Pingback: appliance repair Carefree

  • Pingback: modere products

  • Pingback: college help

  • Pingback: online slot games for free

  • Pingback: Baltasar sanchez haz

  • Pingback: viagra

  • Pingback: viagra

  • Pingback: FBLA

  • Pingback: escort izmir

  • Pingback: emotional intelligence training

  • Pingback: buy adderall xr

  • Pingback: click here

  • Pingback: hydrocodone without prescription

  • Pingback: buy hydrocodone

  • Pingback: buy oxycontin

  • Pingback: pay attention to your body and mind

  • Pingback: numéro de téléphone fixe

  • Pingback: notepad bluebox

  • Pingback: carpet cleaning pretoria

  • Pingback: appliance repair company

  • Pingback: cash for gold

  • Pingback: porn

  • Pingback: nlp kindle

  • Pingback: dalaman airport transfers

  • Pingback: search

  • Pingback: CPCS Answers

  • Pingback: plum lipstick

  • Pingback: personal training

  • Pingback: skin mask

  • Pingback: ?????? ??? 1 ?????? ????? ????? ?????

  • Pingback: web design company perth

  • Pingback: reviews affordable pups

  • Pingback: hbos

  • Pingback: click here for pay day loan review

  • Pingback: Exterminator Service Houston Texas

  • Pingback: M88

  • Pingback: epub gratis

  • Pingback: viagra

  • Pingback: Cheap home insurance quotes

  • Pingback: Download Free Japanese Idols Beautiful Sexy Latest

  • Pingback: reception lehnga

  • Pingback: compare auto insurance quote

  • Pingback: bride and groom cake topper

  • Pingback: yeşil kahve

  • Pingback: yorktown sunroom

  • Pingback: cheapest renters insurance

  • Pingback: wine accessories

  • Pingback: zip code insurance rate

  • Pingback: Winchester sunroom

  • Pingback: sunroom largo

  • Pingback: sunroom winchester

  • Pingback: north richland hills real estate agent

  • Pingback: asp net c# codes

  • Pingback: Tips on How To Wear Plus Size Leggings

  • Pingback: buy tramadol

  • Pingback: buy ambien online

  • Pingback: buy accutane

  • Pingback: Sinisterly - Hack VoIP Calls Wireshark

  • Pingback: sunroom centreville

  • Pingback: buy ativan

  • Pingback: cialis comparatif prix

  • Pingback: kitchen fitters north yorkshire

  • Pingback: bdoutdoors

  • Pingback: cialis

  • Pingback: teen

  • Pingback: hearthstone arena guide

  • Pingback: Weight loss for women

  • Pingback: How Much Mortgage Can I Get

  • Pingback: Viagra

  • Pingback: Toronto Criminal Lawyer

  • Pingback: marketing companies perth

  • Pingback: BUY VIAGRA

  • Pingback: fb group poster xxl

  • Pingback: kundalini meditation

  • Pingback: Aspergers Quiz

  • Pingback: greek island

  • Pingback: Viagraaustraliaau

  • Pingback: about.me

  • Pingback: tworzenie sklepów internetowych lódz

  • Pingback: free meditation music

  • Pingback: cerrajeria murcia

  • Pingback: gums that contain xylitol

  • Pingback: audio-technica ath-m50 review

  • Pingback: muskegon photographer

  • Pingback: sexo

  • Pingback: wedding photography

  • Pingback: Christian Home Business Opportunities

  • Pingback: cooking

  • Pingback: pulseras de goma

  • Pingback: Farmacia online

  • Pingback: Cheap Soundcloud Followers

  • Pingback: Camilo Concha

  • Pingback: pulsera de gomitas

  • Pingback: landscaper

  • Pingback: budaorsi ingatlanirodak

  • Pingback: make money blogging

  • Pingback: Learn Hacking Online

  • Pingback: annuaire téléphonique

  • Pingback: bajar de peso alcachofa de laon

  • Pingback: download bluestacks free

  • Pingback: salon semo

  • Pingback: code promo sarenza

  • Pingback: criminal attorney

  • Pingback: cupon peru

  • Pingback: proair mdi

  • Pingback: click here

  • Pingback: Learn Hacking Online

  • Pingback: essential oils fundraising

  • Pingback: podpis kwalifikowany

  • Pingback: thailand top up

  • Pingback: pozycjonowanie

  • Pingback: noclegi wroclaw

  • Pingback: how to activate win 8.1

  • Pingback: Buy 1000 Likes

  • Pingback: jt foxx

  • Pingback: StrategyDB.com custom TradeStation consulting

  • Pingback: free money

  • Pingback: pay day loans

  • Pingback: Printed Tshirts

  • Pingback: pages jaunes

  • Pingback: drugs

  • Pingback: Accident Attorney, Divorce Lawyers, Personal injury lawyers

  • Pingback: free emailing software

  • Pingback: vending machines australia

  • Pingback: sporty logo design

  • Pingback: stopthestresstoday.com/contact

  • Pingback: Find the Best

  • Pingback: iPhone 6

  • Pingback: our website

  • Pingback: watches wholesale

  • Pingback: creampie

  • Pingback: Baton Rouge Movers

  • Pingback: Roaches for sale

  • Pingback: fort worth texas roofing contractors

  • Pingback: POST YOUR JOB FOR FREE!

  • Pingback: Newport Beach

  • Pingback: computer repair jobs

  • Pingback: online flashcards

  • Pingback: Newport Beach CA

  • Pingback: Online ged classes

  • Pingback: Wigs Denver

  • Pingback: Newport Beach

  • Pingback: Newport Beach CA

  • Pingback: hr24

  • Pingback: aloe vera tooth gel

  • Pingback: indicizzazione google

  • Pingback: how to trade binary options

  • Pingback: betboo

  • Pingback: Portable minigolf

  • Pingback: drysol deodorant

  • Pingback: betboo

  • Pingback: seamless gutters

  • Pingback: betboo

  • Pingback: chelsea ferguson porn

  • Pingback: بفركس نصب

  • Pingback: event atms

  • Pingback: locksmith in Farmington Hills

  • Pingback: property at jaipur

  • Pingback: locksmith Farmington Hills

  • Pingback: alaska fishing

  • Pingback: accident claims

  • Pingback: her latest blog

  • Pingback: alaska fishing

  • Pingback: theplumbingcure.com

  • Pingback: smith-kandal

  • Pingback: Joe Pojman

  • Pingback: canary islands property

  • Pingback: Fun88

  • Pingback: agencja nieruchomosci szczecin

  • Pingback: astrologer

  • Pingback: kinder joy

  • Pingback: M88

  • Pingback: M88.Com

  • Pingback: Julefrokost

  • Pingback: pussy

  • Pingback: Banquet halls in brooklyn

  • Pingback: Familienanwalt Eichendorf

  • Pingback: bob nokley

  • Pingback: Formula T10

  • Pingback: ceiling fans

  • Pingback: spy

  • Pingback: It learning

  • Pingback: central bank

  • Pingback: list of registered domain names

  • Pingback: fails

  • Pingback: Preston Byrd Memphis

  • Pingback: maison des titis doudous

  • Pingback: Preston Byrd

  • Pingback: Butterfly Brooches

  • Pingback: Magnetic Messaging Review

  • Pingback: The Best Work From Home Jobs

  • Pingback: webhotel wannafind

  • Pingback: proxy services

  • Pingback: keylogger

  • Pingback: whaling washington

  • Pingback: thai translation

  • Pingback: Your Identity in Christ

  • Pingback: seattle web design

  • Pingback: cheap supra shoes uksupra shoes uk

  • Pingback: fake reviews

  • Pingback: play free online slots

  • Pingback: digital signage menu boards

  • Pingback: top sport supplements

  • Pingback: digital signage package

  • Pingback: Health Care Reform

  • Pingback: Phoenix Barter Company

  • Pingback: house loans singapore

  • Pingback: view here

  • Pingback: visit this site

  • Pingback: vimax

  • Pingback: vimax

  • Pingback: fitness training

  • Pingback: istanbul evden eve nakliyat

  • Pingback: el niño pelicula

  • Pingback: professional book translation

  • Pingback: 8 bets10

  • Pingback: buy books online

  • Pingback: opus info

  • Pingback: designing website west sussex

  • Pingback: doctor who

  • Pingback: Home Theatre Calgary

  • Pingback: Torby reklamowe

  • Pingback: Annuaire Pratique

  • Pingback: kliknij tutaj

  • Pingback: vimax

  • Pingback: massage porn

  • Pingback: Tiffanie Craddock

  • Pingback: omlat.net

  • Pingback: Tiffanie Craddock

  • Pingback: allgovtjobs

  • Pingback: buy twitter followers

  • Pingback: Korte Kapsels

  • Pingback: link do strony

  • Pingback: jns

  • Pingback: Korte Kapsels

  • Pingback: display annoncering

  • Pingback: Scott Kay Jewlery

  • Pingback: molotov mitchell

  • Pingback: review here

  • Pingback: DIRTY ARMY

  • Pingback: unlock

  • Pingback: at&t unlock iphone

  • Pingback: zaklad opiekunczo leczniczy mazowieckie

  • Pingback: plyty stropowe

  • Pingback: Gheata Carbonica

  • Pingback: vision boards

  • Pingback: browse around this site

  • Pingback: Certificates

  • Pingback: Professional Logo Design

  • Pingback: chiropodist wiki

  • Pingback: datenrettung

  • Pingback: zongwaterpipe

  • Pingback: pubs in yarm

  • Pingback: merchandise from the expendables

  • Pingback: sell house fast

  • Pingback: Arduino

  • Pingback: WebForum

  • Pingback: Matelas futon

  • Pingback: angry birds cheat

  • Pingback: sell my house fast

  • Pingback: sell your house fast

  • Pingback: sell my house fast

  • Pingback: rhinoplasty

  • Pingback: SEO straipsniu rasymas

  • Pingback: hydrocodone

  • Pingback: cheap site traffic

  • Pingback: asian flush response

  • Pingback: electronics

  • Pingback: Check This Out

  • Pingback: kinder surprise eggs

  • Pingback: Back Brace

  • Pingback: code promo la redoute

  • Pingback: lawsuits xarelto

  • Pingback: levitra without prescription

  • Pingback: Hosting

  • Pingback: free voice chat

  • Pingback: Ablution units, Kitchen Cabins

  • Pingback: rinnai tankless water heaters

  • Pingback: Robert Palano

  • Pingback: survey bypass

  • Pingback: 6 passengers taxi van orlando florida

  • Pingback: oficina del registro civil unico

  • Pingback: Student Loan Debt Relief

  • Pingback: cialis

  • Pingback: egg surprise

  • Pingback: windenergie informatie

  • Pingback: Global Marketing Group

  • Pingback: property valuations sydney

  • Pingback: Earn Free Bitcoins

  • Pingback: buy goophone

  • Pingback: Depression

  • Pingback: executive coaching

  • Pingback: strona

  • Pingback: wasap pc

  • Pingback: email responder

  • Pingback: Casino

  • Pingback: production video fort collins

  • Pingback: worksheets for kids

  • Pingback: Dog Whistle to Stop Barking

  • Pingback: go to my blog

  • Pingback: top website designs

  • Pingback: Social Exchange

  • Pingback: reviews of Green Smoke

  • Pingback: diwali greeting cards

  • Pingback: Buddy Nevins

  • Pingback: inew

  • Pingback: laptop reviews

  • Pingback: keman kursu

  • Pingback: property management London

  • Pingback: superbahis

  • Pingback: superbahis

  • Pingback: porn movie

  • Pingback: limo Calgary

  • Pingback: nutritionist advice on weight loss

  • Pingback: Mayday Games Review

  • Pingback: lose weight programs

  • Pingback: http://www.bypassicloudlock.net/

  • Pingback: number1youtubeviews.yolasite.com/ number1youtubeviews.yolasite.com

  • Pingback: blogger layouts

  • Pingback: PUA

  • Pingback: pebble tiles

  • Pingback: cialis

  • Pingback: Philosophy web cordoba

  • Pingback: garcinia cambogia comprar

  • Pingback: caftan marocain

  • Pingback: free blogger templates

  • Pingback: Haushaltsgeraete

  • Pingback: boquillas

  • Pingback: Coquin

  • Pingback: showbox for pc

  • Pingback: lubertino celular

  • Pingback: mansfield solicitor

  • Pingback: Casino

  • Pingback: porno

  • Pingback: kos bali

  • Pingback: Mexican pharmacy online

  • Pingback: Implants chantilly

  • Pingback: Garage door servie white plains

  • Pingback: virtual terminal

  • Pingback: wizard101 crown generator

  • Pingback: vision boards

  • Pingback: poker system

  • Pingback: www.cerrajerosvalenciacapital.es

  • Pingback: visionboards online

  • Pingback: poker system

  • Pingback: Ninja Scroll-There Might Be Ninjas!

  • Pingback: debit card

  • Pingback: Bankruptcy Attorney Atlanta, GA

  • Pingback: Android Apps for students

  • Pingback: Canadian steroids

  • Pingback: coupons

  • Pingback: conspiracy movie

  • Pingback: Halifax marketing

  • Pingback: buy steroids

  • Pingback: loyal 9 marketing reviews

  • Pingback: teen fuck

  • Pingback: drink mixes

  • Pingback: Watch Movies and TV Series Online

  • Pingback: Toronto Product Photography

  • Pingback: projekt instalacji lódz

  • Pingback: wakaf produktif

  • Pingback: dzianiny lodz

  • Pingback: bramy rolowane

  • Pingback: Santa Clara News

  • Pingback: pfanswers

  • Pingback: Paint Protection

  • Pingback: Reverse phone number

  • Pingback: WordPress Blogs Manager

  • Pingback: Courtvision app find pickup basketball games

  • Pingback: WordPress Blogs Manager

  • Pingback: Anonymous

  • Pingback: e-cigarett

  • Pingback: what movies are on netflix

  • Pingback: Minneapolis Locksmith

  • Pingback: Justin Bieber

  • Pingback: Wrecking contractor

  • Pingback: Hyper-V USB

  • Pingback: landscape designers houston

  • Pingback: JT Foxx

  • Pingback: justice

  • Pingback: JT Foxx

  • Pingback: Earn Quick Money

  • Pingback: work at home job 2015

  • Pingback: Electronics

  • Pingback: Online Gambling

  • Pingback: hotels discounts

  • Pingback: Anonymous

  • Pingback: viagra

  • Pingback: el vaquero night club

  • Pingback: Auburn Hills

  • Pingback: turnkey

  • Pingback: cheap social medias

  • Pingback: seo training

  • Pingback: Dedicated Servers Los Angeles

  • Pingback: money lender

  • Pingback: silnik krokowy

  • Pingback: Precor treadmill reviews

  • Pingback: injury care chiropractic

  • Pingback: louisville troma doctor

  • Pingback: neckpain

  • Pingback: horoscope gif android

  • Pingback: descargar app work

  • Pingback: grecja wakacje

  • Pingback: ofermedia peru

  • Pingback: apostilare acte

  • Pingback: süperbahis

  • Pingback: superbahis

  • Pingback: rap

  • Pingback: süperbahis

  • Pingback: Daniel Jackson

  • Pingback: Shop electrical fans and appliances Online in India

  • Pingback: zobacz oferte

  • Pingback: C4 Smart Marketing Solutions

  • Pingback: Diane Lewis

  • Pingback: custom cakes

  • Pingback: Timex Expedition Analog Digital Watch Features

  • Pingback: dentist in woodlands

  • Pingback: teeth

  • Pingback: https://www.facebook.com/answerplaza

  • Pingback: self publishing

  • Pingback: real estate marketing

  • Pingback: how to sell on etsy

  • Pingback: job interview tips

  • Pingback: check this out

  • Pingback: Brooklyn Plumber

  • Pingback: www.effectiveinvestigations.co.uk

  • Pingback: this contact form

  • Pingback: kupit vibrator

  • Pingback: clash of clans triche gemmes T?l?charger

  • Pingback: blogging

  • Pingback: recupero file

  • Pingback: jewels jewelry

  • Pingback: diamond jewelry

  • Pingback: jewelry diamond rings

  • Pingback: LIDAR Jammer

  • Pingback: buy rap instrumentals

  • Pingback: Muay Thai training camp

  • Pingback: swiftpaydayloansonline

  • Pingback: superbahis

  • Pingback: Yacht Charter

  • Pingback: superbahis

  • Pingback: process server Illinois

  • Pingback: make money easy

  • Pingback: porn movie

  • Pingback: Hell in a cell match highlights

  • Pingback: Cilest

  • Pingback: Attorney Florence SC

  • Pingback: American Horror Story Season 4

  • Pingback: Bus Accident Attorney Myrtle Beach

  • Pingback: flotte malerier

  • Pingback: discount electronics

  • Pingback: clash of clans hack

  • Pingback: online poker

  • Pingback: zi xiu tang

  • Pingback: Megan

  • Pingback: comprar colombia

  • Pingback: Limo

  • Pingback: public speaking

  • Pingback: Premium WordPress & WooCommerce Extensions

  • Pingback: vender y comprar

  • Pingback: comprar mexico

  • Pingback: theory social psychology

  • Pingback: affordable car insurance

  • Pingback: lainaa

  • Pingback: Jenny

  • Pingback: lean TRADING the correct way!! Business success!

  • Pingback: How To Relax

  • Pingback: ติว toeic

  • Pingback: Watch Live Stand up Comics performing

  • Pingback: networking

  • Pingback: website traffic

  • Pingback: hats buy online

  • Pingback: internet providers

  • Pingback: viagra for sale

  • Pingback: Maduras XXX

  • Pingback: invest

  • Pingback: pet rescue level 104

  • Pingback: viagra canada

  • Pingback: Wizytówki poznan

  • Pingback: Management Services. All 50 States

  • Pingback: Myer

  • Pingback: lenceria sexy

  • Pingback: imagenes de los mejores jugadores de

  • Pingback: Mca review

  • Pingback: cd tours

  • Pingback: Facil

  • Pingback: goji actives funciona

  • Pingback: orlando PPC

  • Pingback: Johnson Farm Machinery Sickle Servicer

  • Pingback: Illinois Flat Fee MLS

  • Pingback: RockinCat.com-PrivacyPolicy

  • Pingback: Click here

  • Pingback: Marin marketing

  • Pingback: peixoto bustier bikini

  • Pingback: reverse phone lookup

  • Pingback: online payment services

  • Pingback: Spyhunter

  • Pingback: drum and cymbal mutes

  • Pingback: Poker88

  • Pingback: fdpod

  • Pingback: Mobile

  • Pingback: escorts bangkok

  • Pingback: new porn vids

  • Pingback: Aditya Mittal

  • Pingback: shorten url script

  • Pingback: recruitment companies in bath

  • Pingback: Roofing Marietta

  • Pingback: Sonnenschutz

  • Pingback: how to make extra money from home

  • Pingback: Victor Talking Machine Company - Camden, NJ

  • Pingback: Luis Souto LaNautica.com

  • Pingback: xbox usb

  • Pingback: wedding dresses toronto

  • Pingback: get more google plus followers

  • Pingback: Malahat Restaurant

  • Pingback: yellow october

  • Pingback: Neck Pain Victoria

  • Pingback: homepage

  • Pingback: click here

  • Pingback: ??????????? ????? ??????????? ?????

  • Pingback: devis demenagement

  • Pingback: Discover More

  • Pingback: 816-536-3432 fence vinyl

  • Pingback: fitness training courses

  • Pingback: sim data recovery freeware

  • Pingback: saran wrap for weight loss

  • Pingback: Xbox Live 3 Month Gold Membership

  • Pingback: Wordpress Theme Search

  • Pingback: michael shawn

  • Pingback: (816) 373-9080 trucking accident lawyer

  • Pingback: (816) 847-1699 RV DEALERS

  • Pingback: NO MONEY DOWN CAR LOAN

  • Pingback: www.online24h.co.uk

  • Pingback: CAR FINANCING

  • Pingback: AUTOMOBILE LOANS

  • Pingback: Celebrity Shoes

  • Pingback: devis demenagement

  • Pingback: sleep mask

  • Pingback: clip in human hair extensions

  • Pingback: auto loans for bad credit

  • Pingback: wypozyczalnia busow

  • Pingback: wypozyczalnia samochodów

  • Pingback: games

  • Pingback: education

  • Pingback: IT Services

  • Pingback: sandblasting equipment perth

  • Pingback: Thermomix Cookbook

  • Pingback: UK-based factory for LF Beauty UK Ltd

  • Pingback: Welding consumables

  • Pingback: drawing

  • Pingback: Welding consumables

  • Pingback: electric scooter for kids

  • Pingback: whiteboard animation software

  • Pingback: connect with govsimplified

  • Pingback: american diabetes

  • Pingback: E&O Insurance

  • Pingback: Illinois Flat Fee Listing

  • Pingback: devis demenagement

  • Pingback: KDP

  • Pingback: Illinois process server

  • Pingback: process server Chicago

  • Pingback: facebook likes in common

  • Pingback: best instant payday loans uk

  • Pingback: wordpress content slide

  • Pingback: sim free mobile phones

  • Pingback: contract mobile phones

  • Pingback: youtube views

  • Pingback: devis demenagement

  • Pingback: snail white cream

  • Pingback: Brand New iPhone 5s

  • Pingback: moodle mod resource view.php id=130

  • Pingback: fifo wife

  • Pingback: GM Recall information

  • Pingback: motivational videos

  • Pingback: free printable coupons

  • Pingback: startups

  • Pingback: country singer

  • Pingback: lainaa heti

  • Pingback: depannage informatique gratuit

  • Pingback: low interest rate credit cards

  • Pingback: follow me

  • Pingback: internet service provider

  • Pingback: small business finance

  • Pingback: Anonymous

  • Pingback: Legitimate Work from Home Jobs

  • Pingback: Anonymous

  • Pingback: lenceria sexy

  • Pingback: Ryan Eagle The Scammer

  • Pingback: diabetes protocol system

  • Pingback: medical coding

  • Pingback: chicago lawyer

  • Pingback: New Ebay Promo Codes November 2014

  • Pingback: burlesque brighton

  • Pingback: lenceria sexy

  • Pingback: BONUS FOREX POKER

  • Pingback: dental hygienist schools

  • Pingback: The Orient Singapore

  • Pingback: fast way to make money

  • Pingback: logo design

  • Pingback: Quotes Website

  • Pingback: good landing page examples

  • Pingback: infinity downline support

  • Pingback: Parenting

  • Pingback: free phone apps

  • Pingback: shop on shop

  • Pingback: plumber KT3 london

  • Pingback: waitress games

  • Pingback: code de la route

  • Pingback: real estate consultant in Southfield

  • Pingback: Ebola outbreak

  • Pingback: how to root your android phone

  • Pingback: RICETTA CALAFOUTIS ALLE CILIEGIE

  • Pingback: best free online dating site

  • Pingback: kakprosto.ru

  • Pingback: couples counseling san francisco

  • Pingback: trang web mua ve may bay onine

  • Pingback: Celebrity Videos

  • Pingback: tshirt think like a customer

  • Pingback: Make Money Fast

  • Pingback: online poker gaming exclusively for Indian's

  • Pingback: tshirt print set goals reach repeat

  • Pingback: blake mycoskie poster be amazing be revolutionary

  • Pingback: thomas edison poster there aint no rules around here were trying to accomplish something

  • Pingback: ray ban sonnenbrille

  • Pingback: magic bullet blender

  • Pingback: Portiereto

  • Pingback: Hypnobirthing class

  • Pingback: simply breathing

  • Pingback: backlink builder service

  • Pingback: motorcycle outlet

  • Pingback: bubblespinner

  • Pingback: Bikers Gear

  • Pingback: blackjack 21

  • Pingback: self development articles

  • Pingback: site pour telecharger film

  • Pingback: site pour telecharger des film

  • Pingback: telechargement de films gratuit

  • Pingback: hgh supplements

  • Pingback: memory supplements

  • Pingback: choice extra

  • Pingback: penis enlargment

  • Pingback: Link

  • Pingback: online casino games

  • Pingback: 5 htp supplement

  • Pingback: discount

  • Pingback: advanced warfare hacks

  • Pingback: hip replacement lawsuit

  • Pingback: more

  • Pingback: clemson dui lawyer

  • Pingback: earn money from home

  • Pingback: learn more

  • Pingback: ???? ??????

  • Pingback: trasplante de pelo

  • Pingback: bateria do laptopa ibm lenovo

  • Pingback: datingsider now

  • Pingback: Chef K.T. Murphy

  • Pingback: Høm huse

  • Pingback: bigfoot

  • Pingback: Louis Fiori Jr

  • Pingback: Chicago Web Design

  • Pingback: nyt sommerhus

  • Pingback: Raccoon Removal NJ

  • Pingback: wynajem samochodow

  • Pingback: your first million scam

  • Pingback: Cover

  • Pingback: travel dating

  • Pingback: Gluten Free Pizza

  • Pingback: Tablets

  • Pingback: bestradardetectors

  • Pingback: Framed antique oil painting

  • Pingback: Vaping

  • Pingback: big data analytics

  • Pingback: Books

  • Pingback: booking

  • Pingback: toe fungus infection

  • Pingback: matt c justice

  • Pingback: paris metro pass

  • Pingback: 100 Percent Profit Bot scam

  • Pingback: Usenext kostenlos

  • Pingback: aladdin the broadway musical

  • Pingback: best motivation

  • Pingback: Click Here

  • Pingback: ultimate bugout meal

  • Pingback: the language of desire

  • Pingback: anabolic steroids for sale

  • Pingback: click here.

  • Pingback: click here.

  • Pingback: impression of slum

  • Pingback: polecam link

  • Pingback: organizacja eventów kulinarnych

  • Pingback: Deleting Likes

  • Pingback: miedziowanie

  • Pingback: Remove Likes

  • Pingback: how to cure yeast infection fast

  • Pingback: director of photography

  • Pingback: legacy vacation club

  • Pingback: Flexible diet plan

  • Pingback: Big Boobs Japanese AV Idols

  • Pingback: Executive Search

  • Pingback: Atlanta Mobile Mechanic

  • Pingback: risk management

  • Pingback: whatsapp chat history online

  • Pingback: how to read whatsapp messages online

  • Pingback: personal protection

  • Pingback: ebizvarsity

  • Pingback: Bonn

  • Pingback: invisalign Ozone Park

  • Pingback: Bonn

  • Pingback: Green Smoke electronic cigarettes

  • Pingback: GreenSmoke

  • Pingback: Gardening Products

  • Pingback: Miami Heat Basketball Products

  • Pingback: get free stuff now

  • Pingback: CD Mastering

  • Pingback: ibogaine deaths

  • Pingback: johnny the healer complaints

  • Pingback: Anonymous

  • Pingback: seo directory

  • Pingback: Card sharing satellite forum

  • Pingback: cheapest hacks

  • Pingback: TV Uzivo

  • Pingback: the first thanksgiving you are the historian

  • Pingback: jokes

  • Pingback: payday loans

  • Pingback: payday loans

  • Pingback: Taimur Khan is a co-founder of Blueberry

  • Pingback: Drug Rehab Los Angeles

  • Pingback: send parcel to usa uk canada from hyderabad

  • Pingback: new york city hotel rooms

  • Pingback: malaysia delicous food

  • Pingback: Gerald Buchoff

  • Pingback: 0800 Rufnummer einrichten

  • Pingback: escortssingapore

  • Pingback: Tha Mey

  • Pingback: divorce lawyers

  • Pingback: digital

  • Pingback: polycarbonate sheeting

  • Pingback: fast payday loans

  • Pingback: Dating coach

  • Pingback: Highlander 2008-2011 Factory Service Repair Manual Download - ServiceManualRSepair

  • Pingback: vincent price autograph

  • Pingback: convert exe to msi

  • Pingback: Visit This Link

  • Pingback: muskoka vacation rentals

  • Pingback: Diamond Ranch Academy complaints

  • Pingback: visit this site

  • Pingback: Artisan Plombier 75007

  • Pingback: urls

  • Pingback: diabetes miracle cure book pdf

  • Pingback: jovialmum

  • Pingback: witryna

  • Pingback: website traffic

  • Pingback: radiusnyc

  • Pingback: Top Cloud News

  • Pingback: Ervin Mcgreal

  • Pingback: click here

  • Pingback: viagra canadian

  • Pingback: browse around this site

  • Pingback: cash for cars

  • Pingback: custom apps development

  • Pingback: Power Sellers Center Alumni

  • Pingback: Answers Power Sellers Center

  • Pingback: brinks home security

  • Pingback: Texas electric providers

  • Pingback: popular proverb

  • Pingback: Gerald Tritt

  • Pingback: community help

  • Pingback: huntsville commercial plumbing

  • Pingback: Paramotor School Thailand

  • Pingback: ugg boots cheap

  • Pingback: SEO Maryland

  • Pingback: buy viagra

  • Pingback: capital markets skusenosti

  • Pingback: makeanygirlwanttofuck

  • Pingback: click on this weblink

  • Pingback: happy thanksgiving cards 2014

  • Pingback: SEO tampa

  • Pingback: V-Kontakte kaufen

  • Pingback: SEO

  • Pingback: Putt Putt Team Building

  • Pingback: Putt Putt Fun Center Team Building

  • Pingback: Buy used Samsung Galaxy Orlando

  • Pingback: Hermosa Beach

  • Pingback: Rolls Royce Repair in Kent

  • Pingback: English Automotive

  • Pingback: Home Loan Calculator

  • Pingback: Hatem Elhagaly

  • Pingback: hostgator coupon codes

  • Pingback: produkter

  • Pingback: Pet Express

  • Pingback: Blood Flow Restriction Bands

  • Pingback: swiftchat

  • Pingback: sub zero repair service los angeles

  • Pingback: Blood Flow Restriction Bands

  • Pingback: powerbank

  • Pingback: web design and mobile application developement

  • Pingback: youtube traffic

  • Pingback: truffa in rete

  • Pingback: minorenni

  • Pingback: scopate con animali

  • Pingback: Celebrity Shoes

  • Pingback: viagra

  • Pingback: penis enlargement forum

  • Pingback: beyourownboss

  • Pingback: penis enlargement forum

  • Pingback: paid backlinks hacking

  • Pingback: Residual Income

  • Pingback: earn extra cash $$$

  • Pingback: William Livingston

  • Pingback: tutaj

  • Pingback: Cashcashcash

  • Pingback: free slots

  • Pingback: freebiebook

  • Pingback: Best Hypnosis hypnotherapy NLP mp3 downloads

  • Pingback: Les Turnham

  • Pingback: gladiator heels

  • Pingback: cleaner

  • Pingback: colombian brides

  • Pingback: enlace

  • Pingback: generic cialis online

  • Pingback: free taco bell coupons

  • Pingback: Actor Swimsuit

  • Pingback: modded controller xbox one

  • Pingback: muay thai

  • Pingback: best holiday gift for friends and family

  • Pingback: custom controllers xbox 360

  • Pingback: link indexr bonuses

  • Pingback: Life Insurance Images

  • Pingback: MOT YORK

  • Pingback: gifts that give back

  • Pingback: click this link here now

  • Pingback: outsourcing

  • Pingback: Life Insurance Videos

  • Pingback: porn

  • Pingback: UND Aviation Degree

  • Pingback: Jokes And Pictures

  • Pingback: fast payday loans

  • Pingback: masaj izmir

  • Pingback: dpstream gratuit

  • Pingback: streaming youwatch

  • Pingback: streaming youwatch

  • Pingback: blood sugar levels

  • Pingback: mattress singapore

  • Pingback: guaranteed services

  • Pingback: Nefful Singapore

  • Pingback: best pet supplies

  • Pingback: Storage Auctions

  • Pingback: free web advertising

  • Pingback: Your Domain Name

  • Pingback: online games

  • Pingback: zilveren sieraden

  • Pingback: storage auction

  • Pingback: car loan credit score

  • Pingback: paruresis

  • Pingback: T shirts for Christians

  • Pingback: butterball Indoor turkey fryer Review

  • Pingback: big boss 8605 oil less fryer review

  • Pingback: litecoin

  • Pingback: testosterone pills

  • Pingback: for help with insurance claims

  • Pingback: petites annonces

  • Pingback: Web proxy

  • Pingback: Flat Rock insurance provider

  • Pingback: top voip providers

  • Pingback: voip provider

  • Pingback: tacos

  • Pingback: online music

  • Pingback: canon rebel xsi

  • Pingback: forskolin

  • Pingback: new canon dslr

  • Pingback: HERE

  • Pingback: windscreen replacement essex

  • Pingback: fit chair revolutionary gym ball chair

  • Pingback: south loop loft

  • Pingback: disney cars table chair set

  • Pingback: wshh

  • Pingback: party rentals

  • Pingback: izmir masaj

  • Pingback: buy ibeacon

  • Pingback: private jet charter houston

  • Pingback: eventmanager

  • Pingback: Bj mIn vIdEo cOmMiSsIoNs

  • Pingback: SPA BI

  • Pingback: web design for law firms

  • Pingback: sex toys

  • Pingback: germes-trans com

  • Pingback: how to make money online fast

  • Pingback: witryna firmowa

  • Pingback: blood testing

  • Pingback: Rescue Bear Workshop

  • Pingback: personal trainer singapore

  • Pingback: Home Buying Oakland County Mi

  • Pingback: limo hire perth

  • Pingback: forex binary options

  • Pingback: blood tests

  • Pingback: make money on the internet

  • Pingback: Senior Adult Ad Agencies

  • Pingback: new orleans restaurants

  • Pingback: google sniper 3.0 course

  • Pingback: polarized glasses

  • Pingback: get a voice over for your project

  • Pingback: izmir masöz

  • Pingback: wolf ??????

  • Pingback: masöz istanbul

  • Pingback: landscaping services in 15201

  • Pingback: Garage door repair Woodland Hills

  • Pingback: audit grosseto

  • Pingback: Vacation St.lucia

  • Pingback: visit website

  • Pingback: click to go Skin NV social directory

  • Pingback: Anonymous

  • Pingback: only mario games

  • Pingback: www.ihd-wallpaper.com

  • Pingback: tree of savior br

  • Pingback: reviews

  • Pingback: St.Lucia

  • Pingback: purchase peptides

  • Pingback: life insurance

  • Pingback: Income Protection Insurance

  • Pingback: 411 pain

  • Pingback: m88bet

  • Pingback: PAY STUB GROUP

  • Pingback: buy cheap google plus followers

  • Pingback: Smile Care Club

  • Pingback: buy directory listing

  • Pingback: jobs working from home

  • Pingback: make money online

  • Pingback: Lap dancing direvtory

  • Pingback: dong RV

  • Pingback: how to lose weight fast

  • Pingback: Vancouver Chiropractor

  • Pingback: buy twitter followers

  • Pingback: despedidas toledo

  • Pingback: longest volleyball game

  • Pingback: video gamers blog

  • Pingback: Tax Prep Pompano

  • Pingback: prefab cottages

  • Pingback: binary options

  • Pingback: annunci Immobili

  • Pingback: Wedding packages Bali

  • Pingback: trap er niet in

  • Pingback: Usenet kostenlos

  • Pingback: knitting assymetrical sweater pattern

  • Pingback: pastry chef slade

  • Pingback: slade grove

  • Pingback: woodworking plans bonus

  • Pingback: reverse your diabetes today is real

  • Pingback: vienna escort

  • Pingback: superior singing method before and after

  • Pingback: dance studio Los Angeles

  • Pingback: exoitc car rental

  • Pingback: exoitc car rental

  • Pingback: brass bells

  • Pingback: Anonymous

  • Pingback: dating sex blog

  • Pingback: dog water dish

  • Pingback: SUP Paddles Designs

  • Pingback: brisbane bridal photography

  • Pingback: fmtrader احتيال

  • Pingback: fmtrader نصب

  • Pingback: fmtrader احتيال

  • Pingback: sydney call girls

  • Pingback: pinganillos

  • Pingback: movie trailer 2015

  • Pingback: fashion dress

  • Pingback: nice reims streaming

  • Pingback: oferta

  • Pingback: Dresdner Christstollen bestellen

  • Pingback: Scott Ammerman River City Door

  • Pingback: english tuition

  • Pingback: euromillions

  • Pingback: xxx

  • Pingback: funny pictures

  • Pingback: funny jokes

  • Pingback: Anti-Aging Kosmetik

  • Pingback: videos de sexo

  • Pingback: Dragon Hack

  • Pingback: kroken

  • Pingback: Blinds

  • Pingback: holidays fashion

  • Pingback: Now Foods. Pharma Fuel

  • Pingback: witryna

  • Pingback: HAOLIN811's Stack

  • Pingback: Final Cut Pro X Effects

  • Pingback: Roost property management

  • Pingback: planner

  • Pingback: iraqi dinar affiliate

  • Pingback: Uni Bank Panama corrupcion

  • Pingback: escort directory

  • Pingback: sextube

  • Pingback: American Beer

  • Pingback: coach promo codes online

  • Pingback: beginners course to saxophone

  • Pingback: gas engineer jobs in london

  • Pingback: how to play saxophone

  • Pingback: CAN 2015 streaming

  • Pingback: Commercial door service Atlanta

  • Pingback: zahnarzt heidelberg

  • Pingback: air ambulance card

  • Pingback: Anonymous

  • Pingback: free software

  • Pingback: lida

  • Pingback: best diet pill

  • Pingback: online tarot reading

  • Pingback: wloska restoracja

  • Pingback: boat canvas in chicago

  • Pingback: palo alto

  • Pingback: wreck this journal stores

  • Pingback: Barnett RAZR Review

  • Pingback: Canyon Country News Paper

  • Pingback: Click here

  • Pingback: free viagra

  • Pingback: acne mark treatment

  • Pingback: you know you want it

  • Pingback: lump sum

  • Pingback: hotel a Ferrara

  • Pingback: Crime scene cleanup

  • Pingback: 2015 NBA All Star Weekend

  • Pingback: interior home design companies

  • Pingback: HD tablets

  • Pingback: beauty products

  • Pingback: learn to sing in a week

  • Pingback: pebble tiles

  • Pingback: Botanique at bartley

  • Pingback: Valencia, CA News Paper

  • Pingback: sophia hills

  • Pingback: novelty techpoint

  • Pingback: muslim marriage events

  • Pingback: buy traffic

  • Pingback: buy moncler

  • Pingback: what is new in sql server 2014

  • Pingback: consumer health digest

  • Pingback: club

  • Pingback: abarth 500 iphone5s dashboard dock

  • Pingback: agen online

  • Pingback: dyreklinik i Saedding

  • Pingback: epoxy cleaner

  • Pingback: Best Dental Implants in Chicago

  • Pingback: grants

  • Pingback: grants

  • Pingback: Videos Gays

  • Pingback: young virgin girls

  • Pingback: masaj

  • Pingback: náhradní díly

  • Pingback: Religious Books

  • Pingback: mixtape hosting

  • Pingback: bingo websites uk with unique promotions

  • Pingback: These custom coins are excellent

  • Pingback: job online

  • Pingback: Qatar real estate

  • Pingback: Natural Cancer cures

  • Pingback: Hitler

  • Pingback: Bitcoin for Beginners

  • Pingback: porno

  • Pingback: videos porno

  • Pingback: Clarkston Area Small Business Loans

  • Pingback: Small Company Lending Wixom, MI

  • Pingback: Schlüsseldienst Düsseldorf

  • Pingback: coffee beans

  • Pingback: interior design offices

  • Pingback: interior designs dubai

  • Pingback: no deposit bonus

  • Pingback: Resources

  • Pingback: Wixom, MI Area Small Company Loans

  • Pingback: free porn

  • Pingback: prescription savings

  • Pingback: buy viagra online

  • Pingback: penis enlargement pills

  • Pingback: way to make money online

  • Pingback: pop culture

  • Pingback: casino news ac

  • Pingback: free casino games

  • Pingback: Swindon Driving Lessons

  • Pingback: houston san

  • Pingback: diet pills

  • Pingback: porno

  • Pingback: 4 Corners Review

  • Pingback: four corners alliance group compensation plan

  • Pingback: Ogrodzenia

  • Pingback: Ogrodzenia Plastikowe

  • Pingback: dui defense attorney dauphin county

  • Pingback: Happy New Year from Poker Automatics

  • Pingback: xxx

  • Pingback: goede voornemens top 10 2014

  • Pingback: cheap treadmill price

  • Pingback: click for more details

  • Pingback: four corners alliance group coach van

  • Pingback: Listen Radio Online

  • Pingback: click here

  • Pingback: make money online keywords

  • Pingback: prescription drugs

  • Pingback: eljv

  • Pingback: Anonymous

  • Pingback: penny stock aktien

  • Pingback: animals for sale

  • Pingback: animals for sale

  • Pingback: Small Company Loans Clarkston, Michigan

  • Pingback: Small Business Lending Clarkston MI

  • Pingback: kik usernames

  • Pingback: data recovery

  • Pingback: The best VPN Review

  • Pingback: Fullerton roofing company

  • Pingback: residential

  • Pingback: commercial

  • Pingback: this

  • Pingback: training fitness program

  • Pingback: Movers

  • Pingback: Google sniper 3

  • Pingback: love spells

  • Pingback: Foot Sweat

  • Pingback: blod italiano di marketing

  • Pingback: Family

  • Pingback: exotic car rental

  • Pingback: the residual income game

  • Pingback: residual income performance evaluation

  • Pingback: HamRadioCoin on Facebook

  • Pingback: HamRadioCoin on Twitter

  • Pingback: Berita Tentang Fokus Sepakbola dan Liga Inggris

  • Pingback: jobs martinsburg wv

  • Pingback: nasa secrets revealed ufo

  • Pingback: Travel In South East Asia

  • Pingback: linnexuk

  • Pingback: sophia Hills

  • Pingback: android games free

  • Pingback: best usb wall charger

  • Pingback: cheap klonopin online

  • Pingback: pistolet a bille

  • Pingback: m5 Jalan Mutiara

  • Pingback: porno

  • Pingback: Pet Birds

  • Pingback: prudential medical card

  • Pingback: seo Adelaide

  • Pingback: sigint