Is morality objective or subjective?

[Alexis Jacobi]

… if you expressed any doubt at all about the monkey-to-man theory you were immediately bullied and insulted into silence, in the media, or in public schools and universities. You were simply not allowed to doubt that man came from chimpanzees or apes. It was verbotten to question.

But in my view of your opposition to the position that a monkey-like creature evolved into man is not really your primary objection.

You argue that “God made man” and your model is the Garden of Eden. But really it could have been possible that God did set things up so that man, and all other creatures, evolved from a primitive life form in the primordial slime. Your God can do anything, as you often say, or he would not be omniscient God. Why not that?

You actually object to the entire undermining of the biblical narrative and primarily to those who fall out of the Christian belief-fold and become atheists or pagans (or agnostics which is the same).

If someone was a dedicated Christian and believed in evolutionary science you’d likely not object.

As long as the Christian God were admitted, and worshipped according to your established standard, how Man and Life came about would not really matter that much.

Your disbelief in “evolution” is really about disbelief in Christian fundamentals it seems to me.

You just happen to be a Christian fundamentalist and Bible literalist. But many others are not inhibited by fundamentalism or literalism.

[Harbal]

Why does it have to be such a major issue?

Well, because where we come from tells us a whole lot of things. That includes such things as whether or not we are valuable, whether or not our existence has purpose, where we are going, what is expected of us, what we can expect to come, what we should be paying most attention to, what counts in life, what the story of history is really all about, how science fits into our world, what our moral limitations and achievements are, and what the ultimate meaning of it all is. Those are pretty good reasons to think it matters.

I can only assume there is more to it that I don't know about, because I can't see why any of those things depend on our origins.

You are always saying that science sometimes gets things wrong, so why don't you think the Bible must also sometimes get things wrong?

Well, science also gets things right. But science is a human endeavour, one that is fraught with several difficulties, such as that we don't always have all the data, or that people lie when their careers are at stake, or that people who are working on a thesis may too eagerly embrace a result as confirmation, or that the best technical scientists may not be the most perceptive philosophers of science or the best ethicists, or that pride and reputations get involved in scientific prestige, and so on.

The question is, is that what the Bible is? Is it just another human product? If it were, then we should expect all the same fallibilities, and perhaps some unique to religious concerns. But what if it's not? What if it's actually something revealed by God? Then we should not expect it to be subject to the same fallibilities that human endeavours are. We should expect it even to be able to tell us things science never can, such as about morality, or spiritual realities, or objective values, and so on.

Well, of course, you know I entertain no thoughts of the Bible's being revealed by God, and I don't know of any reason for anyone else to think it. What is the evidence that God played a part in the authorship of the Bible?

But the main point is really this: if Evolutionism were true, almost everything we can say about the human race would be quite different than if God made mankind as a special creation. So while the get-alongs could safely argue that maybe God could have used evolution as the mechanism, and still be the ultimate Creator, that compromise just will not work in the human case. Far too much, both theologically and scientifically (and we should add morally, as well) is at stake if man is just a product of time plus chance.

But God can achieve anything, and in whatever ways he wants to, so that explanation doesn't work.

What intelligent designer would come up with such a messy and convoluted life cycle?

We're talking about a fallen state of creation, at the moment: so what we ought to expect to see is exactly what we do see -- a general orderliness and law-governedness in nature, but a decayed and damaged one, in which things like parasites and bizarre and intricate interdependencies are routine. Things are out of order here.

I don't know what a "fallen state of creation" is, but if God created everything in nature, he must be responsible for the state of it. What you have written above seems to be an explanation that explains nothing.

It is not at all unusual for people to believe in the evolutionary process and still believe in God.

It's not entirely unusual, it's true; but it's also incoherent, when they do...at least in regard to human evolution.
The Church of England, the Anglican denomination...
Do any of us have reason to be impressed with what that denomination's clergy is up to right now?

I don't have any reason to be impressed by them, but they are Christians, and the theory of evolution seems to be something they can reconcile with their religious beliefs, so, obviously, it is perfectly possible to do.

The more conservative factions of the C of E have maintained their nerve, and have not shamed themselves. But the main clergy, the centralized authority, have been undertaking a series of "reforms" that are nothing close to Christian...so much so, that they're facing a very serious rift through the entire denomination, with the compromisers and toadies on one side, and the non-heretics and good folks on the other.

So you don't support the C of E's official stance, but that does not change what their stance is, and, as Christians, they are just as entitled as you to define what is and is not compatible with Christianity. I think you should concentrate your effort on your battle with Satan, rather than with evolution, because you have a better chance of winning that fight, albeit that Satan is the favourite.

[Alexis Jacobi]

What is the evidence that God played a part in the authorship of the Bible?

Jews and Christians believe in divine inspiration, naturally, and the prophetic utterances are always pictured as being sent by God and received by the selected man.

Consider Jeremiah:

The Lord’s word came to me:

“Before I created you in the womb I knew you; before you were born I set you apart; I made you a prophet to the nations.”

The same type of idea is found in the way the Vedas are said to have been given to the Rishis (seers):

Tradition has it that humans did not compose the revered compositions of the Vedas, but that God taught the Vedic hymns to the sages, who then handed them down through generations by word of mouth. Another tradition suggests that the hymns were "revealed," to the sages, who were known as the seers or “mantradrasta” of the hymns. The formal documentation of Vedas was done mainly by Vyasa Krishna Dwaipayana around the time of Lord Krishna (c. 1500 BC)

[Alexis Jacobi]

Many things I say, especially my poignant critiques of child-like IC’s beliefs, come as inspired eruptions. Sometimes they coalesce in the air before me — as extremely subtle flower-like wisps of gossamer filiments — which then fall over me like a mist and are translated by the mystic entities that accompany me into human language.

[Immanuel Can]

But in my view...

Which is once again so wrong...it's become entirely uninteresting to me to waste the time to correct your misapprehensions. Sorry.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Denial and negation are routine for you though. I’m convinced you don’t actually understand yourself.

[Immanuel Can]

Why does it have to be such a major issue?

Well, because where we come from tells us a whole lot of things. That includes such things as whether or not we are valuable, whether or not our existence has purpose, where we are going, what is expected of us, what we can expect to come, what we should be paying most attention to, what counts in life, what the story of history is really all about, how science fits into our world, what our moral limitations and achievements are, and what the ultimate meaning of it all is. Those are pretty good reasons to think it matters.

I can only assume there is more to it that I don't know about, because I can't see why any of those things depend on our origins.

Well, it's pretty easy to see how they do. Do you really want me to expand on that?

What is the evidence that God played a part in the authorship of the Bible?

Here are seven short articles on that very subject. https://answersingenesis.org/is-the-bib ... e-is-true/.

But the main point is really this: if Evolutionism were true, almost everything we can say about the human race would be quite different than if God made mankind as a special creation. So while the get-alongs could safely argue that maybe God could have used evolution as the mechanism, and still be the ultimate Creator, that compromise just will not work in the human case. Far too much, both theologically and scientifically (and we should add morally, as well) is at stake if man is just a product of time plus chance.

But God can achieve anything, and in whatever ways he wants to, so that explanation doesn't work.

You're misunderstanding. I'm not talking about what would be the case if God exists; check back to the first line. I'm talking about what is the case if Evolutionism were true.

If Evolutionism were true, then all the theological problems of that foilow: mankind is no kind of special creation. He has no particular destiny. God has no opinion about what he does. He's going to oblvion. There are no moral rules he's obligated to obey, and no such thing as objective morality...and so on.

Thankfully, none of that is so.

I don't know what a "fallen state of creation" is,

Look around, then.

It's a state that is morally corrupt and severed from its Creator by its rebellion against Him. It's thus one that is subject to death, having cut itself off from the Source of Life. It's one in which lots of bad things happen, and they happen randomly, to people good and bad. It's a state in which nature itself is also subject to entropy and death. And it's one in which society, as it attempts to organize itself by the wits of fallen people, ends up disastrously disordered and unjust. It's all of that.

but if God created everything in nature, he must be responsible for the state of it.

Only if He were the only effective will in the universe. But He's not: He's granted human beings to have free will, as well...and we use it rather badly much of the time. The world, the Bible tells us, is the place of mankind's rightful stewardship. It has been designated as his domain, the stage for him to enact his choices and the place wherein he can live for the glory of God -- or for his own glory, as you now see him trying to do.

It is not at all unusual for people to believe in the evolutionary process and still believe in God.

It's not entirely unusual, it's true; but it's also incoherent, when they do...at least in regard to human evolution.
The Church of England, the Anglican denomination...
Do any of us have reason to be impressed with what that denomination's clergy is up to right now?

I don't have any reason to be impressed by them, but they are Christians,

Some are, and some aren't.

It's fascinating to me that we have boards of standards for all kinds of things. Do you know that if you put too much filler, such as carob, into chocolate and then advertise it, you can no longer call it "chocolate," legally speaking? But you can invent a phony word that sounds like "chocolate," such as "chocklit" or "chocolaty," and you won't be sued for false advertising. That's socially-approved deception, of a sort; a person might well buy the packet under the misapprehension that what they're about to eat is chocolate...but it isn't.

We have standards for being a chocolate chip cookie: but we think there are none for being a Christian. But there are: and thus there are quite a lot of people who call themselves "Christians," but are not. And that really shouldn't surprise us. Christ Himself warned us that would certainly be the case. If something as simple as chocolate is attractive to fakers, why wouldn't anything else that's good become similarly an opportunity to inauthentic claimants sometimes?

So you don't support the C of E's official stance,...

Well, their "stance" is contrary to Scripture...so obviously, neither does God. And neither does half of their own people, for that matter.

...as Christians, they are just as entitled as you to define what is and is not compatible with Christianity.

Oh, they're entitled to claim what they want: but that's only because they have the right to be wrong, too. It's God who will turn out to be right; and that's the Christian bet.

[Harbal]

Many things I say, especially my poignant critiques of child-like IC’s beliefs, come as inspired eruptions. Sometimes they coalesce in the air before me — as extremely subtle flower-like wisps of gossamer filiments — which then fall over me like a mist and are translated by the mystic entities that accompany me into human language.

So, basically, most of the time you are covered in cobwebs?

[Alexis Jacobi]

It's a state that is morally corrupt and severed from its Creator by its rebellion against Him. It's thus one that is subject to death, having cut itself off from the Source of Life. It's one in which lots of bad things happen, and they happen randomly, to people good and bad. It's a state in which nature itself is also subject to entropy and death.

Here you have the Christian psychological picture in a neat nutshell. Now, think of Gary’s predicament expressed through deep angst. The world is a death-trap, a misery-factory, a tragically senseless place where the soul sees no way to get along.

It longs for death and cessation.

Instead of “blaming God” as Gary does, then rejecting that God while holding to a bizarre agnostic stance, Christianity’s solution is to locate the fault in Man — in an original man-emblem: Adam. That Man’s choice brought doom and suffering into the world.

It is fascinating to trace how this metaphysics was understood in the 17th century. The Earth, at the cosmic center, was the lowest point, a cesspool, of the Cosmos. It was the place where densities condensed and dangerous, devilish spirits lurked in swamps, bogs and caves. (And in wicked men like Iago). But soaring over that world of density spun the celestial lights where angels held sway. Beams of that light did enter this world though.

Salvific Christ and protective, guiding angels were therefore necessary recourses for the intelligent, blessed man. Knowledge of these things, knowledge of the starts and the spheres was understood to be sacred knowledge.

IC says ‘things happen randomly’ but Medieval man would not have thought so. Everything had a rhyme and a reason. A bad spirit, a disruption in the body, an unfavorable conjunction of planets — or consider The Weird Sisters of MacBeth. Desire and ambition met in the form of conniving Fate.

And it's one in which society, as it attempts to organize itself by the wits of fallen people, ends up disastrously disordered and unjust. It's all of that.

But the opposite or corresponding idea was also conceived snd sought for. The intelligent, illuminated, inspired man could “channel heaven’s light” and the Purified King rule benevolently.

But when badly aspected by natural distortion and

when the planets
In evil mixture to disorder wander,
What plagues and what portents! what mutiny! What raging of the sea! shaking of earth! Commotion in the winds! frights, changes, horrors, divert and crack, rend and deracinate the unity and married calm of states quite from their fixure!

Things fall apart and the centre cannot hold.

IC barely understands the metaphysics he expounds.

Let us go in together,
And still your fingers on your lips, I pray.
The time is out of joint — O cursèd spite,
That ever I was born to set it right!

Really, it all falls to me.

[Immanuel Can]

Christianity’s solution is to locate the fault in Man — in an original man-emblem: Adam. That Man’s choice brought doom and suffering into the world.

Not just him. Everybody. It doesn't take any of us very long to decide that we'd rather have charge of our own lives than listen to God...even if that means we just keep messing everything up.

IC says ‘things happen randomly’ but Medieval man would not have thought so.

Medieval man thought disease was caused by "bad balance of humours." He thought a lot of things that weren't so.

Things fall apart and the centre cannot hold.

That's not Medieval. It's Yeates.

[Harbal]

Well, because where we come from tells us a whole lot of things. That includes such things as whether or not we are valuable, whether or not our existence has purpose, where we are going, what is expected of us, what we can expect to come, what we should be paying most attention to, what counts in life, what the story of history is really all about, how science fits into our world, what our moral limitations and achievements are, and what the ultimate meaning of it all is. Those are pretty good reasons to think it matters.

I can only assume there is more to it that I don't know about, because I can't see why any of those things depend on our origins.

Well, it's pretty easy to see how they do. Do you really want me to expand on that?

No, I wouldn't dream of asking you to go to any trouble.

What is the evidence that God played a part in the authorship of the Bible?

Here are seven short articles on that very subject.

We'll just skip that question, then. I don't really want to read any articles, thank you.

If Evolutionism were true, then all the theological problems of that foilow: mankind is no kind of special creation. He has no particular destiny. God has no opinion about what he does. He's going to oblvion. There are no moral rules he's obligated to obey, and no such thing as objective morality...and so on.

Thankfully, none of that is so.

Actually, when I look at the world, I find that it is very much so.

I don't know what a "fallen state of creation" is,

Look around, then.

It's a state that is morally corrupt and severed from its Creator by its rebellion against Him. It's thus one that is subject to death, having cut itself off from the Source of Life. It's one in which lots of bad things happen, and they happen randomly, to people good and bad. It's a state in which nature itself is also subject to entropy and death. And it's one in which society, as it attempts to organize itself by the wits of fallen people, ends up disastrously disordered and unjust. It's all of that.

But that is just the nature of nature. This is exactly what we would expect in a world ruled by the laws of nature, because it is all we have ever known. That is what we would call empirical evidence of reality. All you are proposing is a theoretical alternative, with absolutely no evidence to support it.

I don't have any reason to be impressed by them, but they are Christians,

Some are, and some aren't.

The C of E is a Christian organisation, so its members are Christian as far as I am concerned. I don't challenge your right to call them whatever you like, though.

It's fascinating to me that we have boards of standards for all kinds of things. Do you know that if you put too much filler, such as carob, into chocolate and then advertise it, you can no longer call it "chocolate," legally speaking? But you can invent a phony word that sounds like "chocolate," such as "chocklit" or "chocolaty," and you won't be sued for false advertising. That's socially-approved deception, of a sort; a person might well buy the packet under the misapprehension that what they're about to eat is chocolate...but it isn't.

We have standards for being a chocolate chip cookie: but we think there are none for being a Christian. But there are: and thus there are quite a lot of people who call themselves "Christians," but are not. And that really shouldn't surprise us. Christ Himself warned us that would certainly be the case. If something as simple as chocolate is attractive to fakers, why wouldn't anything else that's good become similarly an opportunity to inauthentic claimants sometimes?

Well I happen to think that the authenticity of chocolate is the more important issue, even though I don't have any particular fondness for it, but I understand some people do regard it with a certain divinity.

So you don't support the C of E's official stance,...

Well, their "stance" is contrary to Scripture...so obviously, neither does God. And neither does half of their own people, for that matter.

Obviously, on the grounds of religion, I don't give a damn, but on those of patriotism, I must stand firmly behind the C of E.

...as Christians, they are just as entitled as you to define what is and is not compatible with Christianity.

Oh, they're entitled to claim what they want: but that's only because they have the right to be wrong, too. It's God who will turn out to be right; and that's the Christian bet.

And you, too, have the right to claim what you want, and the right to be wrong, which is only fair.

[Alexis Jacobi]

That's not Medieval. It's Yeates.

Yeats.

Yet, my child, it is still very much within the same metaphysical frame. You see that don’t you?

[Alexis Jacobi]

I have kept hidden in the instep arch
Of an old cedar at the waterside
A broken drinking goblet like the Grail
Under a spell so the wrong ones can't find it …

I don't really want to read any articles, thank you.

I went through them. Ridiculous. Wretched apologetics. Rotgut when compared to my effervescent vintages.

First there's the children's house of make-believe | Some shattered dishes underneath a pine | The playthings in the playhouse of the children | Weep for what little things could make them glad.

[Immanuel Can]

It's a state that is morally corrupt and severed from its Creator by its rebellion against Him. It's thus one that is subject to death, having cut itself off from the Source of Life. It's one in which lots of bad things happen, and they happen randomly, to people good and bad. It's a state in which nature itself is also subject to entropy and death. And it's one in which society, as it attempts to organize itself by the wits of fallen people, ends up disastrously disordered and unjust. It's all of that.

But that is just the nature of nature.

Well, it's the only "nature" you and I have experienced, so it's automatic that we suppose that. But you and I only live 70 or 80 years or so. So there's a lot we haven't experienced.

All you are proposing is a theoretical alternative, with absolutely no evidence to support it.

That depends on whether or not we believe God. If you read those articles I sent you, maybe you could figure that out.

The C of E is a Christian organisation, so its members are Christian as far as I am concerned.

Students of the secular discipline of Comparative Religions call that "the self-identification criterion." They also say it's the weakest and least-accurate of all the criteria of judgment of who is and who is not to be taken into consideration as belonging to a particular ideology. And that, they know, is because is really requires nothing but a say-so...and people lie, are in error, misunderstand, and just plain dissemble. So they don't use it for any serious inquiry, because it's so badly misleading. But because we live in a society that is diseased with the belief that one can "identify" as anything one wants (including a woman or a cat, or any of 70 or so other "identities"), we regard questioning the criteria for anyone's claim of "identity," including religious identity, as an unpardonable sin. However, this just makes us suckers for every grifter, loony and charlatan that wants to use the identity criterion to his...or her...or its...or zer...or their...purposes.

But that's obvious, isn't it? One should hardly go by a standard that merely says, "If some schmuck says something, I believe him, every time."

So you don't support the C of E's official stance,...

Well, their "stance" is contrary to Scripture...so obviously, neither does God. And neither does half of their own people, for that matter.

Obviously, on the grounds of religion, I don't give a damn, but on those of patriotism, I must stand firmly behind the C of E.

That's part of the "self-identification" problem. With dripping irony, the C of E has been wryly called "the religion of all good men," (C.S. Lewis) because all one has to do in order to belong to it is appear to be socially, Englishly "a good and civilized person," and you're in. But it takes no thought for the content of belief. Social respectability and Britishness are its only criteria.

But Christianity's not like that. It's a credal faith: if you don't believe it, and really believe it so that you practice it, you aren't it. If you care to know about that, you'll find that C.S. Lewis's celebrated book Mere Christianity -- written by a committed Anglican, of course -- covers it very nicely.

And you, too, have the right to claim what you want, and the right to be wrong, which is only fair.

That is correct. So we will see which is right and which wrong.

My only advice is, "Bet carefully; there's a lot at stake."

[Immanuel Can]

Yet, my child, it is still very much within the same metaphysical frame.

Well, the patronising tone does you no credit, and impresses nobody in particular.

And no, I do not 'see' that Yeats is Medieval...for the simple reason that he was nothing of the kind. Neither should you imagine that that was the world he was responding to: he was writing about very modern concerns, actually. He was writing in reaction to the events leading up to WW 1. Any analysis of the poem will tell you that. But perhaps you've read none.