What is morality?

[Gary Childress]

Yes, I find it empirically true. However, in explaining that to somebody who doesn't believe in God, or in pointing him to the evidence, I've found there's a problem: he's already a victim of his own choice, and often can't see it. One has to be willing to believe God, or one is already divorced from the locus of truth.

But isn't it true of any religion that if someone doesn't believe that religion is the truth then they will have difficulty believing all its claims are true?

You don't know whether or not Genesis 1 is true. But even if you doubt it, it will have no impact on whether or not Romans 1 is speaking the truth. They aren't interdependent claims. They stand on what they say.

Now, if you believe that Genesis was authored by Moses, which is the conventional view, and if you believe that Romans was written by Paul, then you've got two different authors, writing separated by over a thousand years. So they would be independent authors, and you'd have no justification to doubt the writings of Paul based on the writings of Moses.

Only if you are prepared to believe that they had one ultimate Author -- that God wrote both, working through those authors -- would the writings of Moses have any impact on your credibility of the writings of Paul: but if you believe God is the ultimate author, then you no longer have grounds to disbelieve.

So either way, you're cooked on that.

If you find it "empirically" true, can you cite a source...

You're missing the point. The Source is God. You don't get more authority than that.

Now, I personally find the progression in Romans 1 very believable, based on my own experience with people. You can see it in all kinds of cases...well, one can see it when they're prepared to see it. But cynics get nothing, of course. They're already sliding down the continuum you see described in Romans 1, and thus aren't in a moral or epistemic position to recognize the facts. They're more likely to be in denial and in convulsions of self-justification and resentment, than looking at the facts.

You can choose to believe Romans 1 or not. But there are consequences to that choice.

So why would Genesis 1 be incorrect if God inspired both authors? Would God mislead Moses? Or are you saying that the Genesis account of creation is also as factually accurate as Paul's account is? That:

1) Adam and Eve were created from Clay.

2) Adam and Eve were the very first humans to ever walk the Earth.

3) A snake spoke to them, telling Eve to eat an apple that gave her and Adam knowledge.

...Yada, yada...

4) God instructed Noah to build an ark to carry a male and female of every non-amphibious or non-aquatic animal on the entire Earth to save those animals from extinction.

5) The entire Earth became covered with water; every shred of land was flooded.

...insert here any more yada yadas that others would like to insert...

[Immanuel Can]

But isn't it true of any religion that if someone doesn't believe that religion is the truth then they will have difficulty believing all its claims are true?

You don't know whether or not Genesis 1 is true. But even if you doubt it, it will have no impact on whether or not Romans 1 is speaking the truth. They aren't interdependent claims. They stand on what they say.

Now, if you believe that Genesis was authored by Moses, which is the conventional view, and if you believe that Romans was written by Paul, then you've got two different authors, writing separated by over a thousand years. So they would be independent authors, and you'd have no justification to doubt the writings of Paul based on the writings of Moses.

Only if you are prepared to believe that they had one ultimate Author -- that God wrote both, working through those authors -- would the writings of Moses have any impact on your credibility of the writings of Paul: but if you believe God is the ultimate author, then you no longer have grounds to disbelieve.

So either way, you're cooked on that.

If you find it "empirically" true, can you cite a source...

You're missing the point. The Source is God. You don't get more authority than that.

Now, I personally find the progression in Romans 1 very believable, based on my own experience with people. You can see it in all kinds of cases...well, one can see it when they're prepared to see it. But cynics get nothing, of course. They're already sliding down the continuum you see described in Romans 1, and thus aren't in a moral or epistemic position to recognize the facts. They're more likely to be in denial and in convulsions of self-justification and resentment, than looking at the facts.

You can choose to believe Romans 1 or not. But there are consequences to that choice.

So why would Genesis 1 be incorrect if God inspired both authors?

I didn't say it would. I said, even if you believe Genesis 1 is wrong, it would have nothing to do with Romans 1...unless you are prepared to admit that both are divinely authored, in which case, you lose your argument immediately, because you've attributed both to God's authorship, and we all know God -- assuming He exists -- cannot be wrong. That's one of the perks of omniscience.

[Gary Childress]

You don't know whether or not Genesis 1 is true. But even if you doubt it, it will have no impact on whether or not Romans 1 is speaking the truth. They aren't interdependent claims. They stand on what they say.

Now, if you believe that Genesis was authored by Moses, which is the conventional view, and if you believe that Romans was written by Paul, then you've got two different authors, writing separated by over a thousand years. So they would be independent authors, and you'd have no justification to doubt the writings of Paul based on the writings of Moses.

Only if you are prepared to believe that they had one ultimate Author -- that God wrote both, working through those authors -- would the writings of Moses have any impact on your credibility of the writings of Paul: but if you believe God is the ultimate author, then you no longer have grounds to disbelieve.

So either way, you're cooked on that.
You're missing the point. The Source is God. You don't get more authority than that.

Now, I personally find the progression in Romans 1 very believable, based on my own experience with people. You can see it in all kinds of cases...well, one can see it when they're prepared to see it. But cynics get nothing, of course. They're already sliding down the continuum you see described in Romans 1, and thus aren't in a moral or epistemic position to recognize the facts. They're more likely to be in denial and in convulsions of self-justification and resentment, than looking at the facts.

You can choose to believe Romans 1 or not. But there are consequences to that choice.

So why would Genesis 1 be incorrect if God inspired both authors?

I didn't say it would. I said, even if you believe Genesis 1 is wrong, it would have nothing to do with Romans 1...unless you are prepared to admit that both are divinely authored, in which case, you lose your argument immediately, because you've attributed both to God's authorship, and we all know God -- assuming He exists -- cannot be wrong. That's one of the perks of omniscience.

So what if neither of those texts is divinely authored? Is that not possible?

[Immanuel Can]

So why would Genesis 1 be incorrect if God inspired both authors?

I didn't say it would. I said, even if you believe Genesis 1 is wrong, it would have nothing to do with Romans 1...unless you are prepared to admit that both are divinely authored, in which case, you lose your argument immediately, because you've attributed both to God's authorship, and we all know God -- assuming He exists -- cannot be wrong. That's one of the perks of omniscience.

So what if neither of those texts is divinely authored? Is that not possible?

In that case, you'll have to evaluate Romans 1 on its own claims; because it would be unconnected to the claims of Moses in Genesis 1. So the objection becomes moot.

[Gary Childress]

I didn't say it would. I said, even if you believe Genesis 1 is wrong, it would have nothing to do with Romans 1...unless you are prepared to admit that both are divinely authored, in which case, you lose your argument immediately, because you've attributed both to God's authorship, and we all know God -- assuming He exists -- cannot be wrong. That's one of the perks of omniscience.

So what if neither of those texts is divinely authored? Is that not possible?

In that case, you'll have to evaluate Romans 1 on its own claims; because it would be unconnected to the claims of Moses in Genesis 1. So the objection becomes moot.

Correlation doens't mean causation, does it? If Paul witnessed a lot of mental illness and derangement in Rome at the time he wrote and saw it in people who weren't embracing Christianity, then it could just be what happens when a civilization hits a religious crisis. The old Pagan Gods failed to serve Rome once it became an empire. And even after Rome became a Christian civilization, it still had problems and eventually fell completely. In the end, Rome is little more remarkable in some ways than the Mongols, Muslims, Babylonians, and Zoroastrians. China, India, and others had very impressive cultures also. Again, not Christian.

[Gary Childress]

Christian cultures do not inherently have lower rates of mental health issues compared to other major religious or non-religious societies. While religiosity and spiritual participation often correlate with positive psychological resilience and lower rates of certain conditions like depression, these benefits are not unique to Christianity and are found across diverse faith traditions (including Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism).

[Immanuel Can]

Christian cultures

The fact that Google equates being "Christian" with a "culture" tells you right away that Google knows nothing about it.

[Immanuel Can]

So what if neither of those texts is divinely authored? Is that not possible?

In that case, you'll have to evaluate Romans 1 on its own claims; because it would be unconnected to the claims of Moses in Genesis 1. So the objection becomes moot.

If Paul witnessed a lot of mental illness and derangement in Rome...

Nothing in the text implies that is the case. And Paul makes no statement dependent on that.

By all accounts Rome was always pretty deranged; but then, most cultures have been, at one time or another.

[Gary Childress]

In that case, you'll have to evaluate Romans 1 on its own claims; because it would be unconnected to the claims of Moses in Genesis 1. So the objection becomes moot.

If Paul witnessed a lot of mental illness and derangement in Rome...

Nothing in the text implies that is the case. And Paul makes no statement dependent on that.

By all accounts Rome was always pretty deranged; but then, most cultures have been, at one time or another.

What about after Constantine made Christianity the official religion of Rome, was it still deranged?

[Gary Childress]

Christian cultures

The fact that Google equates being "Christian" with a "culture" tells you right away that Google knows nothing about it.

So if Christian cultures aren't much different from other religious cultures in terms of mental illness and derangment, what makes you think that Christianity has it right and none of the other religions do? Or what makes you think that all non-Christians will become mentally ill or deranged?

[Immanuel Can]

The fact that Google equates being "Christian" with a "culture" tells you right away that Google knows nothing about it.

So if Christian cultures...

"Christianity" isn't a "culture." It's a personal faith commitment. It belongs to all cultures and none in particular.

[Gary Childress]

The fact that Google equates being "Christian" with a "culture" tells you right away that Google knows nothing about it.

So if Christian cultures...

"Christianity" isn't a "culture." It's a personal faith commitment. It belongs to all cultures and none in particular.

But some cultures have more Christians than others. You would think that statistically a culture that has more actual people who ascribe to Christianity, would have less mental illness than cultures where Christianity is more rare. There's no evidence to back the claim that rejecting God leads to mental illness or derangement. Perhaps there is evidence that being involved in a communal organization or a religion reduces mental illness but I'm not seeing the evidence that shows that rejecting God specifically is the cause of mental illness, more like the opposite.

[Immanuel Can]

So if Christian cultures...

"Christianity" isn't a "culture." It's a personal faith commitment. It belongs to all cultures and none in particular.

But some cultures have more Christians than others.

That doesn't make the culture "Christian." There's actually no such thing. "Christian culture" is a phrase that makes as much sense as "Socialist emu" or "Buddhist Buick."

[Gary Childress]

"Christianity" isn't a "culture." It's a personal faith commitment. It belongs to all cultures and none in particular.

But some cultures have more Christians than others.

That doesn't make the culture "Christian." There's actually no such thing. "Christian culture" is a phrase that makes as much sense as "Socialist emu" or "Buddhist Buick."

OK, IC. Try to open up your mind to the point I'm making. If a society has a greater percentage of Christians in it than another society that is predominantly Buddhist, Confucian, Taoist, or Hindu, then is it not the case (if rejecting God causes mental illness) that there should be a higher rate of mental illness in those societies than in Christian ones? Does that not make sense to you? Do you know anything about demography or have I lost you?

[Immanuel Can]

(if rejecting God causes mental illness)

Try to track, Gary.

I have not said that the only cause of mental illness is Atheism. In fact, I'm merely pointing out what Romans says is the case, that a particular KIND of moral and mental disordering is a product of the rejection of God. It might not take the form of what we call "mental illness," but rather a kind of disjunction from truth and subsequent derangement of values. In other ways, the person might seem perfectly ordinary. But he'll be off the track with truth, and morally sliding.

And it's exactly what we see in Western society. Open your eyes...if they're not already glued shut.