Search This Blog

Friday, June 4, 2010

Follow up on Rape Case and the Alleged Cover-up by Fundamental Baptist Leader

On May 26th, I did a post about the rape of a 15 year old girl in 1997 in New Hampshire by a leader in her Church, Trinity Baptist Church of Concord, NH. The girl was raped twice by the man and became pregnant. The pastor of the Church at that time was Chuck Phelps (now the Pastor of Colonial Hills Baptist Church in Indianapolis). According to the rape victim, Tina Anderson (she has made her name public), the Pastor of the church told her that even though the man was to blame, she bore at least some responsiblity, even if only 1%. Since it was going to become obvious that she was pregnant, Pastor Phelps had her stand before the church congregation and read a letter. She did not mention that she had been raped and did not identify who the father was but merely asked for forgiveness for the sin of fornication. The culprit, Ernie Willis, was also made to stand before the church and admit that he had been "unfaithful" to his wife and ask for forgiveness. The church was never told that Willis "unfaithfulness" was with a 15 year old member of the church who was now pregnant.

Since a pregnant girl is not allowed to continue in the Christian school operated by Trinity Baptist Church and since her mother did not want her to go to public school, the mother and the Pastor agreed that she should be sent out of state where she could be home-schooled by a Christian family. Within 2 weeks of her "confession" before the church, she was shipped to Denver, Colorado and put under the care of a Christian family and Phelp's Pastor friend, Matt Olson. One of the things that Olson had her do was to write a letter of apology to the rapist's wife for violating her trust (Tina was a babysitter for the Willis family).

Phelps says that he reported this crime to the local police and to the Department of Child Services in New Hampshire but that the police never followed up. He said he would have told them whatever they wanted to know if they had followed up. He essentially says that he did all that was legally required of him.

Last month, Tina Anderson, now 28, decided to come forward. Ernie Willis was arrested and charged with statutory rape. Willis was allowed to continue in a leadership role in the New Hampshire church for years after the incident. He left the church a few years ago after another act of "unfaithfulness" and his wife's divorce of him.

What has piqued my interest in this case is that the Pastor's and churches involved are all within the orbit of Baptist fundamentalism that I used to be a part of. Both Phelps and Olson are graduates of my alma mater, Bob Jones University and both went on after these events in 1997 to lead Baptist colleges that were sister colleges to the one where I used to teach. Phelps was the President of Marantha Baptist College in Wisconsin from 2006 to 2008. Olson is currently the President of Northland Baptist College also in Wisconsin. As a matter of fact, the connection gets even closer because Tina Anderson taught at my former employer, International Baptist College in Arizona, up until she went public on this rape case last month. She resigned from IBC, the day before Willis was arrested. No one has said yet why she resigned. I wonder, but it is only speculation, if the administration at IBC did not want her to go public about a case that happened 13 years ago and involved Pastors who have an association with the fellowhip that IBC belongs to, The Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International. I am not accusing anyone but it will be interesting to find out why she resigned from IBC. The chairman of the board of IBC is Mike Sproul, who is also on the board of directors of the FBFI. Phelps is the Vice Chairman for the FBFI. Sproul also attended Bob Jones University, although he did not graduate from the school. All three, Sproul, Phelps, and Olson are closely connected and share the same basic ideology.

Interestingly enough, the annual meeting of the FBFI will be taking place next week in the Denver area church, Tri-City Baptist, where Anderson was shipped back in 1997 to get away from New Hampshire. One of the speakers is Les Heinze who recently had his own scandal to deal with. The principal of his Christian school, Daniel Brock (who is the brother of the President of IBC, David Brock) was charged with sexual assault involving male students in his high school. A jury acquited him of all charges in February of this year and shortly thereafter one of the alleged victims committed suicide. The jury was not told that gay pornography was found on the Principal's computer. I guess one of the topics at this year's FBF meeting will be how to do damage control when sex scandals hit your church.

There seems to be a pattern among conservative Christians to blame the woman when something like this happens. It may be because of the low view of women that is found in the Bible.  I did a two part series a few days ago about how the OT condones rape. What is clear is that many of these scandals are "hushed up" because of the fear of what the revelations would do to the "cause of Christ." As with the Roman Catholic scandals, there seems to be more concern for the reputation of the church than for the well-being of the victims.

More on this story and the connections will definitely be coming out and I will be watching with interest.

Here are some TV and radio reports related to the incident involving the Anderson rape case.

1. Tina's interview on CBS Early Show:



2. Chuck Phelp's inteview on Radio Station WKXL in New Hamphsire.


3, Report, June 3, 2010, on Local News Fox 59 in Indianapolis:


4. Local TV newsreport on CBS 4 in Denver.

There has been a lot of discussion on the blogosphere about this case. On the fundamental Baptist website, SharperIron.org, many of the commenters were sympathetic to Phelps at first but as more information has come out, most seem to be distancing themselves from him.

Two women, Jeri Massi and Christa Brown, who run websites exposing Baptist predators have multiple posts on the subject. Another website called, StuffFundiesLike, has also discussed the case.

80 comments:

  1. A little fly in the ointment causes both to stink (but it doesn't devalue flyless ointment). Strange that you would be so quick to point out this type of scandal. Hmmm, I seem to recall something about a splinter and a beam. Careful my friend, millstones make poor life jackets. It would be safer to just stick with your attacks on doctrine.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Strange that you would be so quick to point out this type of scandal. Hmmm, I seem to recall something about a splinter and a beam.

    Now, I'm just a backwoods, country lawyer and not attuned to the way you city folk talk, but it sure looks to me like you're attempting to accuse the good Dr. of crimes significantly worse than the ones he's detailing in this post.

    Seeing as how the crimes in this post involve rape, I suppose that means that you're attempting to accuse the good Dr. of rape. And possibly intentionally impregnating his victims so that he can later eat delicious baby sandwiches with mayo and mustard.

    If that's what you are doing, it's absolutely despicable.

    If you're not, and just attempting to make a tu quoque argument to the effect that Dr. Pulliam has undoubtedly committed sins so he has no justification to point out the sins of others based on the whole speck/plank dichotomy, then that's an absolutely atrocious abuse of Scripture and you should be ashamed. As I recall, the entire point of the speck/plank was a condemnation of hypocrisy and those who accuse others in order to deflect attention from their own sins.

    Dr. Pulliam is doing no such thing. He's attempting to bring to light the (well-evidenced, might I add) possibility that there is a strong pattern of abuse within the fundamentalist Baptist church circles. That doesn't mean he participated.

    I, myself, know quite a few people from those same circles who I would never, ever suspect of doing such things. But I also know that the inherent structures of the system open up the strong possibility of such absue. And it must be pointed out.

    Such things can not be left to molder in the dark.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What led the pastor to feel that the teenager was even partly to blame?

    Was it unclear if she was forcibly assaulted, or could the pastor have thought that she willingly consented, or may have been involved in some kind of seduction?

    I can't imagine how anyone could suppose that a "cover up," of this would benefit the cause of Christ. Isn't the truth simply the very opposite?

    But, in a deeper sense, if the gospel is true, and God's love a reality through the incarnation, than why should anyone want to walk away from Jesus, even if the institutional church appears to be heading to Hell in a hand basket?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Geds, I am no one's judge. I'm merely pointing out that once we take up the ad hominem sword, everyone's likely to get cut. I freely admit that rape and coverup are shamefully inconsistent with the message of Christianity. There may (and there may not be) something in the system of fundamentalism that actually caused this scenario. More likely, it is a greater condemnation of mankind in general, since this crime doesn't seem to fit any one group more than another. As I said, it is the dead fly that stinks. If by this argument Dr. P. thinks it disproves Christianity or even fundalmentalism, its confusing the fly with the ointment.

    ReplyDelete
  5. DC,

    I don't think these personal failures "disprove" Christianity. I realize that people associated with all kinds of groups have moral failures. I think there is a tendency going back to the OT scriptures to minimize the importance of women. There is little doubt that women were treated as property in the ANE and the Hebrew women were no different. This downgrading of women, I think, still can be found in some conservative Christian circles and may have something to do with the way this particular victim was treated.

    ReplyDelete
  6. DCGriff,

    There are two things of note here.

    1) These pastors are doing horrible things. It is ridiculous and horrible that atheists like Dr Pulliam end up breaking the news and calling for correction within the church. It's unconscionable. The rapes AND the blaming of the women for them are inexcusable.
    My own local church has recently excomm'd and called the police on a deacon who was a pædophile. That's how you should do it - when you discover the crime, you take the necessary actions, and then weep and comfort the victims.

    2) The only reason Dr Pulliam has to talk about this stuff, and about rape and slavery and such, is b/c he "intuits" that these things are wrong. As an atheist, his worldview lacks any objective moral standard whatsoever, so ask him enough questions and you'll eventually see him say "I know rape is wrong b/c my personal intuition tells me so". I probably don't have to tell you that "intuition" is a sorry (and of course tautological, non-prescriptive, non-normative, and self-referential) basis for morality. He just happens to dislike rape today. Who knows, though? He might like it tomorrow; no one can provide evidence to the contrary. The funny thing is, if his intuition changes, so does his basis for morality. Alluvasudden, there's no reason not to say that rape would become right for him.

    BTW, Dr Pulliam, I've been calling you "Ken" but did not realise you had an earned Ph.D (I read your profile and yet somehow my brain just missed it). My sincere apologies; I believe in giving honor where it is due.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The apostle Paul said "as it is reported commonly among you"

    As Ken well knows he and I could spend the next week writing about the sexual misconduct we have seen within the Independent Baptist movement.

    What we also know is that sexual misconduct is routinely covered up. After all "scandal" will hurt the cause of Christ, the church's testimony, etc. Jack Hyles. Bob Gray. Do a goolge on these two alone and you will find enough to satisfy your every curiosity. (and these men pastored Churches with thousands in attendance)

    Independent Baptists set themselves up for this stuff. They preach an impossible standard of living. They preach a holiness no one can keep. (not even with the mythical Holy Spirit)
    I know a fair number of preachers that railed against sin on Sunday and went to strip clubs, adult bookstores, and banged their secretary on Monday.(their day off) :)

    DCGriff wants to play the game "hey these Christians are not like us" or "don't lump us together with them." Sorry, that doesn't work. They are your family members. They believe 99% of what you believe. Theologically they are Christian.

    While I think some argument can be made that extreme fundamentalism can drive people to do awful things.......the new kinder, gentler, Evangelicalism has plenty of skeletons in the closet.

    The ISSUE is Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christianities repressive moral code. (though certainly rape, in the story at hand, is criminal, as are the things that happened afterward) Sexual dysfunction in the Church is quite common. Much of it is caused by the repressive moral code of the Church.

    Bruce

    ReplyDelete
  8. ---

    DCGriff,

    I believe it is you who are confused here. Ken has said it before, but it bears repeating. Sure, all institutions have their crimes and cover-ups. What you are missing, though, is that Christianity, if true, would have a safeguard against such things, namely the Holy Spirt, the Almighty CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE!! Surely Christians will sin, but these egregious sins should be missing from an institution headed by Jesus Christ, ostensibly the Sovereign Lord of all the Earth, and, not only righteous, but fervently abhorring all wickedness. And these crimes aren't being committed by nominal Christians, but by high ranking Christians, those that according to the pastoral epistles, are to be "beyond reproach". Now, either God is letting in the most vile riff raff imaginable (and has been for nearly two millenia now) or there is no God and there is nothing special or supernatural about Christianity.

    Moreover, even if I concede that you may be technically right that such inconsistencies don't necessitate that Christianity is false (I believe they do, but for the sake of argument), it does gives us incredibly solid ground for skepticism. For example, there are always scalpers outside of the baseball stadium near me selling tickets to that day's game. Now, I've heard dozens of stories of people who have been ripped off by these scalpers and have lost lots of money buying faulty tickets.

    Now, according to your "it's the fly that stinks, not the ointment" ideology, I'd be wrong to be skeptical of scalpers, since I have no way to PROVE that all scalpers rip people off. I'm sure that some people are just legitimately trying to sell off tickets they have no use for. But I'm going to go on being highly skeptical of the "scalping industry" because it has shown me no reason to deem it trustworhty and reliable. Likewise, based on the 2,000 years of history of impropriety, scandal, war, and atrociously vile behavior within all ranks of the Christian church, one would be wise to be highly skeptical of such an organization.

    So, you see there, we have both inductive and deductive grounds for claiming that Christianity is indeed false and a delusion.

    ReplyDelete
  9. What you are missing, though, is that Christianity, if true, would have a safeguard against such things, namely the Holy Spirt

    And what YOU are missing is Romans 3 and 7.
    Why is it that atheists never take sin into account when in these kinds of arguments?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Rhology: As an atheist, his worldview lacks any objective moral standard whatsoever, so ask him enough questions and you'll eventually see him say "I know rape is wrong b/c my personal intuition tells me so". I probably don't have to tell you that "intuition" is a sorry (and of course tautological, non-prescriptive, non-normative, and self-referential) basis for morality. He just happens to dislike rape today.

    So it's not possible at all that the basis for "don't rape" is built on the attitude of "don't take things that don't belong to you?" Or, quite possibly, "Don't hurt people for your own personal pleasure?" Or, "Don't treat others as mere objects?"

    The only possible explanation for not raping is, "I don't much like it."

    Odd. I once disliked pecan pie. Now I like it. I have yet to make the leap to liking rape. But, y'know, that's because me eating pecan pie has zero effect on any other human being. Me raping someone has a large effect on another human being.

    DCGriff: Geds, I am no one's judge. I'm merely pointing out that once we take up the ad hominem sword, everyone's likely to get cut.

    You're the one who took up the ad hominem sword. Your definition of ad hominem seems to indicate that you believe that a news anchor who reports that a warehouse fire is possibly arson is, by simply reporting that the police are looking in to it, admitting to being an arsonist.

    So either you don't understand the words that you use or you actually did accuse Dr. Pulliam of being a rapist. The other possibility, of course, is that you're attempting to derail any conversation by creating a set of ad hominem and tu quoque arguments and, in effect, killing the messenger because you don't like the message and don't have a reasonable response to it.

    This is not, for the record, to attack you personally. If you want to have a good faith discussion of the issue, by all means, let's. But starting off with implications that Dr. Pulliam has some sort of horrible sexual sin he's trying to cover by simply writing a blog post about rape and cover-up allegations is not the start of a good faith discussion. It's the exact opposite.

    So if you want a good faith discussion, it's important to realize how you're starting it. If you don't want a good faith discussion, by all means, keep up with the not-so-subtle insinuations.

    ReplyDelete
  11. ---

    Yeah, it's called contradiction. Would you weigh that passage in Romans 7 against the overwhelming amounts of passages in the Scriptures where God makes promise after promise that he will deliver his sheep from evil (isn't that in the Lord's prayer?) or the passages in the pastoral epistles (I believe it is Titus), where leaders are to be beyond reproach, and even the mere hint of impropriety is enough to disqualify a leader.

    What I see in Romans 7 is what I see in all Christians. Paul is trying to rationalize an inconsistency in his worldview, namely, why he continues to sin and do evil, despite being a "child of God". Obviously, he thought he should was to be becoming more righteous, and as that didn't happen, this was his way of rationalizing it. It's a rather comical one, at that. He's basically saying, I continue to sin, but I really, really, really want to do good, so at least God's ways are on my mind. That has to count for something, right?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Rhology,

    You can call me Ken. I am not hung up on titles. My moral intuition is based on the epistemological theory of foundationalism. You can disagree if you like but I think its philosophically defensible. I would rather try to defend it than defend your position of moral absolutes derived from the Christian holy book which condones slavery, rape, polygamy, genocide and many other atrocities.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Romans 7 was my get out of jail free card, along with 1 John 1:9.I sinned. I did bad things. I wronged others. But I want to do the right things. Pray. Start process all over again. But, since no matter how "good" I am I sin against God in thought, word, and deed....so my life is like being in a tumble dryer.

    ReplyDelete
  14. ---

    Forgot to annotate it, but my last comment was in response to Rhology.

    Also, concerning his comment that Ken has no objective standard for morality, I'll repeat what I said to Rhology before.

    It's irrelevant what Ken actually believes to his argument (if I read his argument correctly), all he has to do is assume the morality of the Christian worldview, and use that as a means to show a contradiction.

    A syllogism:

    1) Rape of a 15 year old girl is wrong under the Christian worldview.
    2) Christians pastors, imbued with the Holy Spirit, would not rape a 15 year odl girl, no would they be complicit in the coverup of such a heinous offense.
    3) A Christian pastor was complicit in the rape and coverup of a 15 year old girl.

    It matters not whether Ken "intuits" that rape is wrong. And if Ken isn't making this argument, I am.

    ReplyDelete
  15. ---

    I hear you NW. Being an evangelical Christian, and actually taking it seriously, was like being in a veritable Sysyphean nightmare. Now matter how hard you pushed, you just always seem to be going backwards. And when you didn't push at all, you kept going backwards, because you were always measuring yourself against an impossible standard.

    Thanks for setting us up to fail, Yahweh, and then punishing us for doing so. Oh, by the way, here's some praise and worship. You earned it!

    ReplyDelete
  16. It matters not whether Ken "intuits" that rape is wrong. And if Ken isn't making this argument, I am.

    That's actually a very good point. The simple fact that you're dealing with a culture that says that it's wrong to do X and the person gets caught doing X means that the person is violating the precepts of their culture.

    You can then take it a step further with another logical thought progression:

    There are Christians who argue the only basis for morality is the Bible and anyone who doesn't believe it is immoral. There are people who follow this attitude who are involved in raping underage girls and covering it up. There are non-Bible believers who have never once raped anyone, be the of age or not and would not dream of being complicit in an attempt by another to cover it up.

    It therefore follows, if you take the premise that the only basis for morality is the Bible, that someone who does not rape and cover it up is less moral than the Bible believer, since it is belief and not action that is the final arbiter of morality.

    So that means you either have to question your basis for morality or your definition thereof.

    Meanwhile, it seems to me that if your belief system puts you in a position where you have to take the side of rapists (or murderers, or genocidal maniacs, or BP executives...) simply because they believe the same thing you do, then there's a really good chance that you're doing it wrong. And if you have to find a way to imply that someone who is saying, "Rape is bad," is, in fact, doing it to cover some horrible thing he's done or may well decide that it's not bad next week, you are, in fact being less moral (and violating the Bible, might I add) by bearing false witness and engaging in gossip with malicious intent.

    Ken: You can call me Ken. I am not hung up on titles.

    Somehow the phrase "the good doctor" just seemed apropos this morning. I didn't figure you were...

    Also, on a side note: Hi, Bruce.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hi Geds!

    is built on the attitude of "don't take things that don't belong to you?"

    Sure, I can see that. But then I simply ask the next (and identical) question - why is THAT morally wrong, to take things that don't belong to you? Just b/c of "intuition" again?



    I once disliked pecan pie. Now I like it. I have yet to make the leap to liking rape

    Fine, but on what basis do you say with certainty that the future will definitely be like the past?



    Me raping someone has a large effect on another human being.

    So? What if I intuit that effecting others in ways they'd like is morally wrong?


    The simple fact that you're dealing with a culture that says that it's wrong to do X and the person gets caught doing X means that the person is violating the precepts of their culture.

    So? And what if the culture changes to accept rape?
    Tell you what - deal with this.


    that someone who does not rape and cover it up is less moral than the Bible believer,

    And if you can find someone who defends the idea that Christians never sin, then you'd have a point. But, like I said, you are not even taking sin into acct. Why so stubborn in your strawman?



    Exploring,
    Would you weigh that passage in Romans 7 against the overwhelming amounts of passages in the Scriptures where God makes promise after promise that he will deliver his sheep from evil (isn't that in the Lord's prayer?)

    Maybe I take them ALL. How are they contradictory?


    leaders are to be beyond reproach

    Yes, which would mean that the leader should struggle against sin, not give into it all the time. Yes, there's a difference.



    Paul is trying to rationalize an inconsistency in his worldview, namely, why he continues to sin and do evil

    Not in his WORLDVIEW, but in his actions.


    2) Christians pastors, imbued with the Holy Spirit, would not rape a 15 year odl girl, no would they be complicit in the coverup of such a heinous offense.

    There's where your syllogism fails. There's no way to know for sure that someone is imbued with the HS, for one thing. And committing an action such as raping a girl and then blaming it on her would indicate that he is not in fact imbued with the HS. But at any rate, this is far from a 100% sure thing.





    Dr Pulliam,
    You can call me Ken. I am not hung up on titles.

    Fair enough. I just didn't want to give anyone the idea that I was intentionally disrespecting your accomplishments. I do prefer to call ppl who have PhDs "Dr", actually (since I don't have one, haha). :-)



    Foundationalism - The basic beliefs are said to be self-justifying or self-evident

    What are those basic beliefs, and how do you know them?


    NW Ohio,
    Romans 7 was my get out of jail free card

    Well, that's the wrong attitude about it, so maybe there was your problem.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Rhology,

    Basic moral beliefs such as rape is always wrong. I know them as I know other foundational beliefs. If you want to learn more, read some works on Foundationalism.

    ReplyDelete
  19. So? What if I intuit that effecting others in ways they'd like is morally wrong?

    Then you're an idiot with zero empathy? I mean, seriously.

    What if tomorrow I "intuit" that the sky is actually a giant rhododendron and that a giant pile of dog crap is actually a delicious cinnamon roll? What if next week I "intuit" that there is a large pile of gold doubloons in the middle of the street and run out to get them, only to get run over by a truck?

    I mean, basically, your argument boils down to, "If you don't use the Bible you're inventing your own morality as you go along." This is not true. Your arguments are built on tautology and assertion and your seem impervious to any sort of reason.

    So at the moment I'm going to "intuit" that there's nothing worth discussing here.

    So? And what if the culture changes to accept rape?
    Tell you what - deal with this.


    Why do I have to deal with your terrible strawman argument from your blog? It's a stupid scenario.

    But I will tell you this: I self-identify as a feminist. My argument is this: women are people, ergo they deserve to be treated like people and not objects. And any ideology that says otherwise should be resisted.

    And I notice that in your straw argument the reason that people are doing what they do is because their gods tell them to. I know that you intuit that it can't ever possibly happen in your religion because your god is right and all other gods are wrong and you will brook no argument, but tell you what, deal with this:

    If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. Deut 22:28-29

    Apparently the only thing that the pastor in the original story did wrong was to not pay the girl's father 50 cents and marry her. I intuit that the Bible doesn't think there's anything wrong with a man raping a woman. It's just that the man has now taken away a piece of property's value, like if I borrowed your car and then drove it in to a wall.

    ReplyDelete
  20. ---

    Rhology,

    "There's where your syllogism fails. There's no way to know for sure that someone is imbued with the HS, for one thing. And committing an action such as raping a girl and then blaming it on her would indicate that he is not in fact imbued with the HS. But at any rate, this is far from a 100% sure thing."

    Apologists always fall back on this tactic. It is manifestly clear in the Bible that true believers in Christ and, God in general, would not succumb to such heinous crimes and evils as those in this article and those seen in the Catholic church. Yet, when you tell me that those who do such things are obviously not imbued with the HS, you are asking me to assume your position, but if I were willing to do that, I wouldn't have raised the objection.

    Do you expect me and every skeptic ever to look at the history of Christianity and say, "All those people CLAIMING TO BE CHRISTIAN who go to church, pray, read the Scriptures, teach the word, yet do terrible things, yeah, they're not really Christians. They're just charlatans. All those others claiming to be Christians who acted morally and charitably their whole lives, yeah, they're the true Christians"? If I just assumed such things, well, I'd be a Christian, now wouldn't I, because you have to be brainwashed to exhibit such confirmation bias.

    Moreover, if we can't even expect Yahweh to stop HIS OWN SHEEP from committing such atrocities, why should anyone have any confidence that Yahweh can eliminate evil at the end of time?

    Stop deflecting the objection and trying to avoid the issue, and instead, tell us why anyone should believe that Christianity is anything more than an illusion, when Christians overwhelmingly act just like everyone else in the world. Theer is no evidnece that Christians as a whole are any different than the rest of the world as a whole.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Dr Pulliam,

    OK, two can play that game!
    Basic moral beliefs such as rape is always morally compulsory. I know them as I know other foundational beliefs.
    So...who's right and how can we know? "Intuition" again?



    Geds,
    Then you're an idiot with zero empathy?

    Uh oh, you ignorantly said "empathy". Try again.


    What if tomorrow I "intuit" that the sky is actually a giant rhododendron and that a giant pile of dog crap is actually a delicious cinnamon roll? What if next week I "intuit" that there is a large pile of gold doubloons in the middle of the street and run out to get them, only to get run over by a truck?

    Great question. Why don't you ask Dr Pulliam to answer it? It's not like I'm a fan of "morality by intuition".


    I mean, basically, your argument boils down to, "If you don't use the Bible you're inventing your own morality as you go along." This is not true. Your arguments are built on tautology and assertion and your seem impervious to any sort of reason.

    I mean, basically, your argument boils down to, "If you don't agree with my intuition, you're wrong, and I know this by intuition." This is not true. Your arguments are built on tautology and assertion and you seem impervious to any sort of reason.


    Why do I have to deal with your terrible strawman argument from your blog? It's a stupid scenario.

    Let the reader judge. I think you don't want to deal with it b/c you can't.
    Or you're too intellectually limited to realise how it wrecks your moral framework. Either way, I'm glad I'm not in your position.


    I self-identify as a feminist. My argument is this: women are people, ergo they deserve to be treated like people and not objects.

    1) Prove the ergo.
    I'd encourage you to read up on Hume's Guillotine. I've been bringing it up for several threads now, and nobody's touched it. Not even Dr Pulliam, who, as a PhD holder shouldn't be afraid to delve into a little elementary philosophy. how does IS imply OUGHT?
    2) My argument is this: atheist women are not people, ergo they deserve to be treated like objects and not like real people. And any ideology that says otherwise should be resisted.
    Prove me wrong.



    people are doing what they do is because their gods tell them to

    Yeah, you know, sometimes people do what they think god(s) tell them to.


    Apparently the only thing that the pastor in the original story did wrong was to not pay the girl's father 50 cents and marry her.

    So the Bible prescribes a legal punishment and restorative punishment to the girl and her father and you think it's actually winking at it? OK.
    Prove you know what 50 shekels was worth back then.
    What would you prefer? That the girl thus never have a husband to take care of her?
    On what basis do you think you get to make these anachronistic judgment calls? Where's your tolerance?
    Extrapolate OUGHT from IS here. Go.

    ReplyDelete
  22. EtU,
    It is manifestly clear in the Bible that true believers in Christ and, God in general, would not succumb to such heinous crimes and evils as those in this article and those seen in the Catholic church.

    1) RCism is not Christian, for one thing.
    2) I'm sorry you don't read Romans 7 or 1 John 2 or 1 Cor 5, discussing discipline of SO-CALLED believers. Your biblical ignorance is not my problem.



    Do you expect me

    I expect you to not present strawmen. If you do, and are corrected, I expect you to say "oops" and move on, dispensing with the strawman. Stubbornly holding to it just makes you look like what you apparently are - a fool.


    if we can't even expect Yahweh to stop HIS OWN SHEEP from committing such atrocities

    Where did He promise He would do that before the Eschaton? Quote chapter and verse, please.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Rhology,

    Hume's guillotine applies to those who attempt to make arguments to get from "is" to "ought." That is not what I am doing. Foundationalism recognizes that there are certain beliefs that are self-evident and do not have to be justified inferentially. Again, I suggest you read the Foundationalists and then direct your critique of me with that in mine. Hume's guillotine does not apply to me.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Dr Pulliam,

    IS - Rape occurs.
    OUGHT - Rape ought not occur.
    Why not? How do you know that "rape ought not occur" is a brute fact?

    ReplyDelete
  25. If you are serious about understanding my view of Intuitional Ethics, you could read Robert Audi, The Good in the Right: A Theory of Intuition and Intrinsic Value, Princeton University Press (2005).

    ReplyDelete
  26. Dr Pulliam,
    Does the view expressed in this book differ appreciably from the view you've been expressing inthis comment and others after it in the same thread?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Prove the ergo.

    Um, that's an extremely dumb statement. Then again, you followed with:

    My argument is this: atheist women are not people, ergo they deserve to be treated like objects and not like real people.

    So, basically, your attitude is either, "Atheists aren't people," or simply, "Atheist women aren't people." At which point you prove yourself to be a horrific bigot.

    Either way, I can't prove the "ergo" to your satisfaction, simply because you're coming at it with a circular premise.

    Moreover, my statement is that "women are people." You then limited it to "atheist women aren't people," the assumption being that theist women are. So proving the ergo (and the more I repeat your use of the term there the more convince I am that you do not know what that word means) is, by necessity, impossible, since I made a blanket statement about an entire gender's personhood, and then you rejected a subset of that gender. Ergo, you have created an impossible premise.

    Good show on that, by the way. You've proven that you're fantastically good at internet arguing, where the point isn't to discuss or come to understanding, but to win no matter how far you have to shift the goalposts.

    Let the reader judge. I think you don't want to deal with it b/c you can't.
    Or you're too intellectually limited to realise how it wrecks your moral framework. Either way, I'm glad I'm not in your position.


    There is nothing to deal with. You tell a story about a theoretical village that rapes women and leaves them in the woods because of their god. My response is that it's a stupid premise, but that if those attitudes are found anywhere they should be resisted.

    That is my moral framework. And, intellectually, that is my stance.

    So the Bible prescribes a legal punishment and restorative punishment to the girl and her father and you think it's actually winking at it? OK.

    Let's think about the scenario presented by that Bible passage for a moment. Say you have an unmarried daughter. There is a man she doesn't like who is stalking her and trying to convince her to marry him. He comes across that Bible passage and realizes that he has an option.

    So he follows her home from work one night, grabs her, rapes her, and then sends you fifty bushels of barley (which is actually probably what an ancient Mesopotamian shekel was, for the record). You are now required to let the man marry your daughter.

    How does that sound?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Geds,

    Either answer my questions, or we're done. I've dealt with lightweights like what you're presenting yourself to be too many times, and I'm a bit tired.

    One thing:
    He comes across that Bible passage and realizes that he has an option.

    Only if he reads it totally out of context, with no Bible knowledge, kind of like what you're doing here.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Rhology,

    The positions are essentially the same You may disagree but you should read the best modern philosophical defense of the position before you do. Audi is a Professor of Philosophy at Notre Dame.

    ReplyDelete
  30. May I ask you simply to present your defense of it in response to my specific questions? Or are you simply trying to get rid of me? I mean, I could point you to multiple texts about my own position, such as Van Til or Bahnsen or Gordon Clark, but this is a blog, not a PhD dissertation. I don't think that asking you to defend your view is unreasonable. Do you?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Either answer my questions, or we're done. I've dealt with lightweights like what you're presenting yourself to be too many times, and I'm a bit tired.

    Oh, we've been done for a while. I've just been trying to plumb the depths of your utter disregard for humanity. I don't seem to have enough rope to get to the bottom of that well, though.

    Either way, my inability to answer your terrible arguments founded on arguments by assertion, tautology, and burning strawmen doesn't mean that I'm a lightweight. It means that you don't have the ability to form a logical argument. The fact that all you can seem to do is say, "Well what about THIS!" and then link back to your own blog, thereby attempting to set up an argument from authority with yourself as the authority just shows that you don't know how to, y'know, research.

    Either way, feel free to wash your hands of the conversation. I know you're going to walk away assured that you're right and I'm a horrible, amoral, evil person.

    But, then, I didn't advocate systemic rape in this conversation. I didn't declare women to be mere chattel. So if that means that I'm horribly amoral, I'll proudly wear that label.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Since, according to what we've seen, if I were to ask you to prove that "utter disregard for humanity" is objectively morally wrong, you'd just stall and change the subject, I wear your contempt as a badge of honor. I'd need some evidence that you've even understood my arguments before your disapproval of them would lead me to doubt them.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Rhology,

    I would prefer to discuss this at length when I do some posts on my moral theory. That will give you time to read Audi and perhaps we can have an educated dialogue.

    ReplyDelete
  34. One has to wonder, tbh, why you haven't done that yet, since you're obviously standing on top of your as-yet-undefined and undefended moral theory to make these condemnations of rapist pastors. So why sidestep difficult questions about the applications you're making?
    After all, all I'm basically doing is always asking one more "Why?" I don't know why that should be so hard to deal with (unless of course your view has no answer).

    ReplyDelete
  35. That will give you time to read Audi and perhaps we can have an educated dialogue.

    You, sir, appear to be an eternal optimist. I salute your readily apparent goodness.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Rhology,

    The foundationalist believes that there are certain truths that are self-evident. I believe it is self-evident that it is wrong to rape, to murder, as well as a few other things.

    ReplyDelete
  37. And if someone else doesn't think it's self-evident? What if a whole bunch of people don't?

    I can answer these questions (and will if anyone but asks), but like I said, just one more "Why?".

    ReplyDelete
  38. And if someone else doesn't think it's self-evident? What if a whole bunch of people don't?

    We throw them in prison.

    The limit of any societal system is that there can be people who decide to opt out. For people who choose to live off the grid as hermits that's not a problem. For people who choose to believe that they don't have to follow societal mores, we create laws and punishments for violating said laws.

    And I'm sure you'll argue this point and say it disproves the possibility of having a moral society, but consider this: the entire purpose of this conversation is a post about pastors violating Christian principle. If you're going to argue that sociopaths prove that no one else can be moral, you're already fighting a losing battle from the start.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Rand Hummel preaching about how he told a girl who was molested to repent for her sin of anger at being molested.

    http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=94092035500

    Rand Hummel preached this message at the opening services of Bob Jones University in 2009.

    "This year’s opening services speaker will be Dr. Rand Hummel, director of the Wilds of New England and former program and assistant director for the Wilds Christian Camp in Brevard, N.C. Dr. Hummel graduated from BJU in 1978 with a degree in Bible and received an honorary doctorate from the University in 2002."

    http://www.bju.edu/news/2009-08-31-opening-services.php

    ReplyDelete
  40. Rhology,

    Why? Because it is self-evident.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Gmarp,

    Thanks. Its always about the girl and what she needs to repent of in fundamentalism.

    ReplyDelete
  42. And Hummel's job is working with children at camp!! People like him have such vocal opinions about sexual victims and are still put in massive authority positions in the church over children. If people in the church are Truly outraged over the behavior of men like Phelps and Olson, then they should be taking a closer look at the ideologies of men like Hummel.

    ReplyDelete
  43. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Dr Pulliam, I thought of sthg over the wknd, sorry.
    Hume's guillotine applies to those who attempt to make arguments to get from "is" to "ought." That is not what I am doing. (Source)

    IS: I intuit that rape is distasteful to me (much like brussels sprouts).
    OUGHT: One ought not to rape.

    The big question is how we get from the IS to the OUGHT. My answer is obvious, but yours, not so much.

    You continue, more recently:
    Why? Because it is self-evident.

    Is that just b/c you and other intuition-moralists say so? What is your evidence? And if the majority disagree with you, which is quite probable, how do you deal with the fact that it's apparently not self-evident to the majority? If you'd argue they're suppressing it or something, how do you know?



    Geds,
    We throw them in prison

    1) What if your throwing them in prison is wrong? You're suggesting we prosecute and repress people's self-expression without any confirmation that what they're doing is wrong? How biased, how prejudicial of you!
    2) You're just telling me that if you have the power, you'll repress them. So might apparently makes right for you. Gotcha.



    For people who choose to believe that they don't have to follow societal mores, we create laws and punishments for violating said laws.

    Right, like hiding Jews.


    the entire purpose of this conversation is a post about pastors violating Christian principle.

    Well, the purpose of MY comments has been to call into question any atheist's moral outrage over Christian pastors committing what the Bible identifies as sin.
    Surely y'all atheists aren't so backwards, so Bronze Age, so parochial, so bigoted, so non-freethinking that you think there's such a thing as sin, are you?

    Peace,
    Rhology

    ReplyDelete
  45. Rhology,


    You have it wrong:

    I intuit that man ought not to rape.

    Look up the word self-evident.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Dr Pulliam,

    1) I don't see how that gets you to ought. Fine, you intuit what you think is an ought. That's an IS statement. Get me to OUGHT.

    2) Yes, I know what "self-evident" means. Tell you what - I intuit that man OUGHT TO rape. It is compulsory (not merely permissible). I know this b/c it is self-evident.
    Now, if you disagree, please tell me why. Will your answer be appreciably different than your ipse dixit that, nuh uh!, your intuition is better than mine? On what basis is your self-evident proposition to be preferred? B/c you intuit it?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Rhology,

    You don't understand foundationalism. There are certain beliefs that are self-evident, that is, they are not inferential beliefs.

    If your intuition tells you that rape is good, then you are a socio-path who will wind up in prison. There are always exceptions but the near unanimous opinion of man is that rape is wrong, thus all societies have laws against rape.

    Hume's guilliotine does not work against foundationalism. Again, I suggest you read Audi's book. If things were as simple as you think they are, then you should be able to make a real name for yourself by refuting Audi.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Further update: The current pastor of the church in Colorado where the rape victim was sent has issued a letter. You can read it here and comments about ithere .

    ReplyDelete
  49. Mr. Ken,

    I trying to understand this and I have a question but Im not sure how to get it from my head to this keybord, but I will try.

    You wrote "There are certain beliefs that are self-evident, that is, they are not inferential beliefs. " But how you know that saying that "there are belefs that are self evident" is a sentence that itself is self evident? If you want me to beleve that sentence where is the evidense that shows that the idea that "there are certain beliefs that are self-evident, that is, they are not inferential beliefs" is true? What makes your definishon the true one?

    ReplyDelete
  50. Dr Pulliam,
    There are certain beliefs that are self-evident, that is, they are not inferential beliefs.

    No no, I do understand that. The purpose of my reductio is to demonstrate the emptiness of your ipse dixit.
    See, *I* say that "rape is morally compulsory" is in fact that which is self-evident. You are mistaken in thinking that "rape is morally wrong" is self-evident. And I have a whole bunch of people, both in prison (those who are being oppressed by the oppressive majority) and out of prison (who take their stand against The Man) behind me.


    If your intuition tells you that rape is good, then you are a socio-path who will wind up in prison.

    I knew it. Your view reduces to might makes right.
    Plus, this has nothing to say about the MORALITY of rape. Now you're just telling about what you'd prefer to do to someone who violates your preferences.
    See, if I can gain enough power, then I can make the same category error as you and start saying that rape is morally compulsory. Since I have the power.
    This is the problem with your human-centered and human-based moral system.



    There are always exceptions but the near unanimous opinion of man is that rape is wrong

    The near-unanimous opinion of human societies throughout human history have not been atheistic. If you don't respect counting noses at all times, I don't see why this isn't an exception too.


    Hume's guilliotine does not work against foundationalism

    It does until you can make some real connection between what you intuit and what is normative and prescriptive outside yourself, and why.



    you should be able to make a real name for yourself by refuting Audi.

    Right, just like I'd make a real name for myself in refuting evolution. Those things aren't quite as simple as you make them out to be, sir.


    chaz miller,
    Exactly.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Is it okay for me as a middle aged man to marry an eleven year old girl? The bible does not seem to mention any prescriptions against pedophilia so I must assume that it is alright, yes?

    This is one of the problems with Divine Command Theory. The Bible, Qur'an, Zend Avesta, or whatever does not cover all moral dilemmas that can arise. Then the believer in DCT has to fall back on moral intuitions just like the rest of us.

    Another problem would be proving that your ancient human books really are a special revelation from a deity. Good luck with that!

    ReplyDelete
  52. Is it okay for me as a middle aged man to marry an eleven year old girl? The bible does not seem to mention any prescriptions against pedophilia so I must assume that it is alright, yes?

    What if middle aged men think this is okay. What justification do you give for telling them they're wrong?

    This is one of the problems with Divine Command Theory. The Bible, Qur'an, Zend Avesta, or whatever does not cover all moral dilemmas that can arise

    So what? No one denies that we can come to a greater understanding of morality. Divine commands lay down specific boundaries that we don't step outside. Maybe God wants us to learn other things that happen to be wrong by using reason? Or maybe what we anachronistically read into the text isn't accurate?

    But the issue isn't moral epistemology. You atheists constantly want to run down red herring road. The issue is moral ontology. There is no basis, no standard, no ontological source for your morality. It's all personally subjective. Moral values don't actually exist in a manner that all would be bound by them, so no one has a reason to tell someone else they are wrong.

    How a theist finds out what comports with the nature and essence of God is moral epistemology. Divine commands are only one aspect of that.

    ReplyDelete
  53. @Bossmanham

    The problem with Divine Command Theory is that you cannot prove that your source texts actually come from a deity. You reject the sacred books of all other religions as coming from the minds of man. I reject your sacred canon of sixty-six books for the exact same reason. Your "objective" morality is based on the subjective opinions of an ancient desert tribe. Not to mention that people subjectively interpret sacred books to support their own viewpoints.

    Maybe God wants us to learn other things that happen to be wrong by using reason?

    Maybe, if there is a God, he wants us to use our capacity for altruism, compassion, empathy, and reason to discover all the rules of morality on our own?

    ReplyDelete
  54. Walter,
    You apparently don't understand what an internal critique is. But, since I want to be helpful, here you go.
    Find a different "problem" with our moral standard. You can't prove your own epistemological standard either; you have to presuppose it and go from there, just like everyone else. So don't act all superior.

    Now,
    Maybe, if there is a God, he wants us to use our capacity for altruism, compassion, empathy, and reason to discover all the rules of morality on our own?

    And maybe God wants us to say nothing but "pink donkeys!" all day long and sit around. You could play these empty what if games all day; what matters is the specific claim being discussed. I have shown how Dr Pulliam's intuition theory is wholly inadequate (even when assumed to be true). You haven't shown that my own theory is inadequate (when assumed to be true). Get to it.

    And the Bible DOES have sthg to say about all situations that arise. It leaves many things to the conscience that is guided by the Bible's principles. See Romans 14, 1 Corinthians 8 and 10.

    Peace,
    Rhology

    ReplyDelete
  55. And the Bible DOES have sthg to say about all situations that arise. It leaves many things to the conscience that is guided by the Bible's principles. See Romans 14, 1 Corinthians 8 and 10.

    If the Bible is not the Word of God then why should I care what it says about anything? What methodology do you use to determine that a body of literature comes from God? I await your answer.

    Does everything just come down to presuppositions? Why should I adopt your presuppositions? Is fideism the basis of your beliefs?

    BTW, where have I acted all superior? I know that I don't have all the answers. But you act like you do.

    ReplyDelete
  56. If the Bible is not the Word of God then why should I care what it says about anything? What methodology do you use to determine that a body of literature comes from God?

    First, you must acknowledge that God exists. Second you must acknowledge that Jesus is who He claimed to be. Third, you see that Jesus and His disciples took the scriptures to be the word of God. Fourth, see that the early church used the Bible as the word of God. Fifth, the Holy Spirit will testify to the one who trusts in Christ that the Bible is God's word.

    The methods God uses to show an individual this is true could vary as much as individuals.

    ReplyDelete

  57. First, you must acknowledge that God exists
    .

    As an agnostic I will say that God is a possibility that I do not rule out.

    Second you must acknowledge that Jesus is who He claimed to be

    I cannot say for sure what the historical Jesus claimed himself to be. I do not presuppose biblical inerrancy. I don't think that the Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels considered himself to be the incarnation of Yahweh.

    Third, you see that Jesus and His disciples took the scriptures to be the word of God.

    Again, this presupposes inerrancy. Hard to say what is fact and what is legendary embellishment in our gospel stories. I also cannot say for sure that Paul considered his own epistles to be sacred scripture?

    Fourth, see that the early church used the Bible as the word of God.

    And early Islam used the Quran, and Hindus use the Vedas, and Zoroastrians used the Avesta, and etc.,etc..

    It sounds like it boils down to this: "you first have to believe before you will believe."

    ReplyDelete
  58. It sounds like it boils down to this: "you first have to believe before you will believe."

    Umm...you have to believe in God before you believe He had a word to give, yeah. Someone once said, we believe in the Bible's inerrancy because we believe in Christ. I think that is the proper order. I don't know if it's possible to believe in Biblical inerrancy without trusting in Christ as your savior.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Again, this presupposes inerrancy

    No it doesn't, you can think the gospels and Acts are good historical sources without thinking they are inerrant.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Here is a quote from someone who believed that one needed a religion in order to have an objective moral code:

    This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious belief. The great masses of a nation are not composed of philosophers. For the masses of the people, especially faith is absolutely the only basis of a moral outlook on life . The various substitutes that have been offered have not shown any results that might warrant us in thinking that they might usefully replace the existing denominations." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 10

    ReplyDelete
  61. I'd've thought better of you than to incite your readers to commit the genetic fallacy, Dr Pulliam.

    Besides, it's not like Hitler was a Christian. You're committing your fallacy at the expense of paganism.

    ReplyDelete
  62. I am not saying that the quote from Hitler proves anything, so I am not committing the genetic fallacy. I am merely citing a statement that he made. You are free to interpret it anyway you like.

    Hitler was a Roman Catholic as I understand it and he never renounced his faith. Granted, he was not a typical RCC and he was obviously a sociopath, but he was not an atheist, as Hector Avalos clearly shows.

    ReplyDelete
  63. I am not saying that the quote from Hitler proves anything

    Oh, OK. Then...what was the point of posting it, I wonder?


    Hitler was a Roman Catholic as I understand it and he never renounced his faith

    I'm no friend of the Roman Church, but I suggest you do read the link.
    And I didn't claim he was an atheist. He was a pagan.

    ReplyDelete
  64. In addition, Hitler said in a proclamation to the German Nation February 1, 1933: "The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and co-operation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life." (My New Order, New York: Reynal & Hitchcock, 1941, p. 144.)

    What is my point? My point is that one can believe that Christianity provides an objective moral code and still commit awful atrocities. The OT is full of these atrocities. So, what good is an "objective moral code" if it can lead to such acts? Christians will say, "well that it is not true Christianity ! But herein lies the problem, if the "objective moral code" of the Bible can be interpreted in different ways, how then can anyone be sure they have the correct moral code? So, to argue that one only has a sure basis for saying whether something is right or wrong, if it is based on the moral code of the Bible is misguided. My question is: "which moral code" because the Bible has several and they are contradictory. Christians cannot agree among themselves on what the "true" moral code is.

    ReplyDelete
  65. My point is that one can believe that Christianity provides an objective moral code and still commit awful atrocities.

    1) Yes, quite. Don't tell me you're unfamiliar with the biblical doctrine known as "sin".
    2) I suppose we're back to your "intuiting" that these "atrocities" were "awful", aren't we? But once again, apparently Hitler "intuited" that murdering Jews was self-evidently a good thing. So the objective outside observer has to ask: how do we know who's right between you 2?


    So, what good is an "objective moral code" if it can lead to such acts?

    Obviously, it tells you that they are indeed atrocities.
    Are you a PhD in theology and do not understand these things?


    if the "objective moral code" of the Bible can be interpreted in different ways, how then can anyone be sure they have the correct moral code?

    Oy. This is the kind of stuff I see from the least informed atheists on teh Interwebz, sir. It's the same way I know you're questioning me about the moral code of the Bible and not telling me that Jell-O 5 no bones and the further they fly the much. This is a postmodern, worthless, conversation-killer that cuts the throat of ALL communication. Try something else, please.


    Christians cannot agree among themselves on what the "true" moral code is.

    Someone who's willing (and able) to repeat the message of the Bible, whether or not he agrees with it, would know that the Bible actually predicts such things. I'm having trouble seeing what good your education did you, to be honest...

    ReplyDelete
  66. Rhology,

    I am glad to have you here and I don't mind interacting with you but your veiled personal insults are not appreciated. My goal is to keep this blog on higher plane than the majority of such internet forums.

    Hitler got the idea that "killing Jews" was a good thing from his RCC heritage and from the writings of Martin Luther. Both of these were supposedly based on the "objective" moral code of the Bible. Go back and read the post on Avalos' chapter in TCD. Many Christians have blamed the "Jews" for killing Jesus for centuries. The traces of the animosity can be found in the NT.

    Yes, I know that the Bible teaches that men are sinners but many of these atrocities were done by people who thought they were being obedient to the God of the Bible. They based it on their understanding of the "objective" moral code of the Bible.

    BTW, I notice you didn't answer me on how one is supposed to know what the "true" understanding of the "objective" moral code of the Bible is.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Hitler got the idea that "killing Jews" was a good thing from his RCC heritage and from the writings of Martin Luther.

    Are you unaware that the Bible expects that sinful people will get things wrong?
    How is this a critique of my position? Or is it? If it is not, are you simply giving a history lesson? If so, why do it here and not in a completely different post/thread?


    I know that the Bible teaches that men are sinners but many of these atrocities were done by people who thought they were being obedient to the God of the Bible.

    1) You'd have to be specific to which atrocities.
    2) I keep hoping that, someday, you'll tell us how you know what "atrocities" are, and why they're bad.
    3) The operative word is "who THOUGHT they were being obedient". I'm not aware of a place where the Bible says or intimates that just b/c you THINK you're being obedient to God, you are actually in reality being obedient to God.


    I notice you didn't answer me on how one is supposed to know what the "true" understanding of the "objective" moral code of the Bible is.

    What's that? Corn chips autumn Nigel Antarctica Moonship down fad78f7ad9f7asd98f7?

    ReplyDelete
  68. Are you unaware that the Bible expects that sinful people will get things wrong?

    Christians are as sinful as everyone else. So I guess there is no guarantee that they get things right either.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Rhology,

    I have said that I hold to the notion that some acts are self-evidently wrong. I have given you a source that explains this position in detail (Robert Audi). I will say again that you need to read it and then refute Audi.

    One does not need a holy book to know that its wrong to put human beings in ovens. One does not need a holy book to know that its wrong to rape another human being. As a matter of fact, many of these atrocities are done by people because they think a higher power has given them the authority to do it, even though it may have seemed wrong to them to do so.

    I have blogged on the Canaanite genocides, the condonation of slavery and rape in the OT. These things which are self-evidently wrong were either commanded or condoned by your holy book which take to be the only objective standard of morality. You may continue to believe its the true standard of morality if you wish, but I will follow my moral intuitions.

    ReplyDelete
  70. One does not need a holy book to know that its wrong to put human beings in ovens

    Right, because you say so. Without answers to the challenges above, there's nothing more to say.


    You may continue to believe its the true standard of morality if you wish, but I will follow my moral intuitions.

    Makes sense, since no one's moral intuitions have ever misled them!

    ReplyDelete
  71. Rhology,

    And Christian's have never been misled by their interpretation of the one true objective standard of morality?

    ReplyDelete
  72. Ken

    A few points:

    1) Uncritically quoting Hitler about Christianity isn't displaying much critical thinking. I haven't read an historian yet who believes that Hitler believed much of what he wrote about Christianity in Mein Kampf. Most would agree that he was merely seeking to gain some credibility with Christians. In fact, name me one historian who believes Hitler was a believing Christian.

    2) You state that Hitler got his idea that it was ok to kill the Jews from the RCC and Martin Luther. And what proof do you have of that assertion? How do you know what teaching Hitler got from the Church? How do you know what he read of the works of Martin Luther? That's an assertion looking for evidence.

    3) Lastly regardless of what you think of Audi, surely a PhD such as yourself should know that issues such as this are rarely settled so easily among experts in the field. It's not like Audi wrote his book and everyone said, "Oh, gee, I guess he's right, I'll just quit and hang it all up now". A quick Google search reveals any number of critiques and challenges to Audi's work in moral intuitionism so just citing Audi and acting like he's settled the issue and the academic world now sits at his feet doesn't seem very persuasive to me.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Grifman,
    1) I was only citing Hitler as an example of one who said that a legitimate moral code must be based on religion. Whether he actually believed that or not, who knows but he said it. As for a quote, John Toland said Hitler was "a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite detestation of its hierarchy, he carried within him its teaching that the Jew was the killer of God. The extermination, therefore, could be done without a twinge of conscience since he was merely acting as the avenging hand of God—so long as it was done impersonally, without cruelty." (Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography‎ New York: Anchor Books, p. 703.)

    2) Listen to Hector Avalos: Every single point in Luther’s plan was implemented by Nazi policy. For example, during Kristallnacht, the horrific anti-Jewish rampage of 1938, Jewish synagogues, businesses and homes were burned or ransacked, just as Luther’s first and second points direct. Moreover, whether by coincidence or not, Kristallnacht spanned Luther’s birthday on November 10. Jewish literature was burned by the Nazis just as is stated in Luther’s third point. Rabbis were certainly forbidden to teach, as directed by Luther’s fourth point. The arrests and shipment of Jews to concentration camps certainly would be consistent with Luther’s fifth point. Jewish property, including works of art, was confiscated by the Nazis, thus paralleling Luther’s sixth point. Luther’s seventh point had a correspondence in Nazi labor camps, with their infamous “Arbeit macht frei” (“work liberates”) slogan.
    The plans are so similar that even Martin H. Bertram, a Lutheran Luther scholar and the translator of Luther’s anti-Jewish tract, states: “It is impossible to publish Luther’s treatise today, however, without noting how similar his proposals were to the actions of the Nationalist Socialist regime in Germany in the 1930’s and 1940’s.” And when one looks at how Hitler viewed Luther, all we need to do is consult Mein Kampf : “Beside Frederick the Great stands Martin Luther as well as Richard Wagner.”
    (The Christian Delusion, p. 373). Read the whole chapter for further documentation.

    3) I am not saying that Audi has convinced everyone. (BTW, your position has not convinced everyone either--a quick google search will show all the people refuting the Bible as an objective moral code). What I was saying is that Audi has written a full length defense of the position. Rhology kept asking me "what about this" and "what about that" so I told him to go and read the full treatment and then come back to discuss.

    ReplyDelete
  74. OTOH, Rhology has been asking very, very simple questions.

    ReplyDelete
  75. OTOH, Rhology has been asking very, very simple questions.

    The problem is that secular moral theories are not a simplistic as Divine Command Theory. DCT requires no thought at all; it requires blind obedience to authority.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Rhology,

    And I have answered them but obviously not to your satisfaction, thats why I suggested the book by Audi. He gives a full defense of the position and deals with objections like yours. If you are genuinely interested in the subject rather than just trying to "prove your point," you might read it. I have read the arguments on the DCT and I don't find them satisfying.

    ReplyDelete


  77. Actually, you've answered some challenges, but left some very important ones unaddressed.
    Like here:

    here:*I* say that "rape is morally compulsory" is in fact that which is self-evident. You are mistaken in thinking that "rape is morally wrong" is self-evident.

    AND

    Your view reduces to might makes right...Now you're just telling about what you'd prefer to do to someone who violates your preferences.

    AND

    The near-unanimous opinion of human societies throughout human history have not been atheistic. If you don't respect counting noses at all times, I don't see why this isn't an exception too.


    thats why I suggested the book by Audi. He gives a full defense of the position and deals with objections like yours. I

    Now wait just a second. If the "book" by Audi can be interpreted in different ways, how then can anyone be sure they have the correct understanding of it?

    ReplyDelete
  78. Things like rape and murder are not always wrong under DCT. These things are only "objectively" wrong at the whim of a deity. If the deity changes his mind tomorrow, suddenly rape and murder will be the right thing to do. The only thing that is considered absolutely wrong under DCT is disobedience. You do what your told to do and try not to think about it too much. If God tells you to kill women and children, you just do it even if your "fallen" human morality cringes in horror at what you are being told to do.

    It is all about obedience--no questions asked.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Walter,

    Under CHRISTIAN DCT, I dispute both.
    1) Rape is never commanded nor condoned by God in the Bible.
    2) Neither is murder. God is justified to put anyone (as all have sinned) to death at any time. It is only by His mercy that we continue to live. When God puts someone to death and/or commands you to put them to death, it's not murder, b/c it's justified. So you don't understand Christian theology. Again.


    If the deity changes his mind tomorrow,

    God doesn't change His mind.
    You, OTOH, do all the time. All humans do. Why should I trust a human more than God?


    It is all about obedience--no questions asked.

    1) Why would I challenge the One Who made a perfect plan?
    2) On what grounds would I challenge Him? Where's my moral authority in myself?
    3) Interestingly, I AM asking questions here, of you and of Dr Pulliam. How many are YOU answering? Not many.

    ReplyDelete
  80. DCT is elegant in its simplicity. The one major flaw with this is the source of these so-called divine commands. We don't have a list of divine commands written in the stars, or in some other manner that makes it clear that the commands are coming from a higher power and not just from the minds of other humans bent on manipulating their fellow man. The source for your commands are coming from HUMAN LITERATURE. Not to mention that your "divine" guidebook does not cover every moral situation that a person can face in their lifetime, so it has limited usefulness.

    DCT does have its appeal because a person would no longer have to agonize over moral dilemmas--you could just go and consult the guidebook. The problem that I have with this theory is that we have no clear commands coming to us straight from God; we just have large number of humans CLAIMING to speak for God--and many of these "prophets" are contradicting each other.

    To put it plainly, if God wishes to give us commands to cover every situation, then he needs to quit hiding and come down and communicate with us directly. Anecdotal tales in old books does not seem to be a very efficient mode of communication for an omniscient and omnipotent being.

    ReplyDelete