What is morality?

[Gary Childress]

(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.

Never mind. You're doing so much squirming and misdirecting and contradicting of yourself that it's getting annoying.

[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.

Never mind. You're doing so much squirming and misdirecting and contradicting of yourself that it's getting annoying.

What you mean is that I won't make the argument you wish I would make. But I get to make my own point, Gary...you get the choice to accept or reject it, but you don't get to write it for me.

[Gary Childress]

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.

Never mind. You're doing so much squirming and misdirecting and contradicting of yourself that it's getting annoying.

What you mean is that I won't make the argument you wish I would make. But I get to make my own point, Gary...you get the choice to accept or reject it, but you don't get to write it for me.

I stepped away for a while, and I've been thinking more about it.

So you're not saying that all people who reject the Christian God will become "mentally ill" or "deranged". Is that correct, because I haven't seen you mention anything about Buddhists or other non-Christian religions all becoming "mentally ill" or "deranged". So maybe you're simply saying that having a deeper connection with others spiritually through religious beliefs and practices in general helps prevent insanity. Is that correct? Or are you indeed saying that anyone and everyone who rejects the Christian God specifically becomes insane?

[Immanuel Can]

Never mind. You're doing so much squirming and misdirecting and contradicting of yourself that it's getting annoying.

What you mean is that I won't make the argument you wish I would make. But I get to make my own point, Gary...you get the choice to accept or reject it, but you don't get to write it for me.

I stepped away for a while, and I've been thinking more about it.

So you're not saying that all people who reject the Christian God will become "mentally ill" or "deranged".

It depends on two things: what is the nature of their rejection of God, and how do we understand mental illness?

To the first, some are hard-hearted, and others are broken-hearted; the latter are closer to the truth than the former, and thus will find it easier to see more. That's a choice, too. But it also depends on what we understand by "mental illness". It's not the case that all mental illnesses are the same, or have only one cause. It's certainly not the case that no Christian can ever find himself struggling with bipolar disorder, either. It's not about that. It's about a specific kind of mental illness, rarely even recognized in our society, but very common, even among the professing "religious": and that where one becomes blind to spiritual truth and morally disordered, purely as a result of having rejected God in a willful decision of rebellion against Him. That puts a person on a slippery slope to further mental disorder in those realms, just as Romans 1 says.

Here's the sum of my own experience with Atheism, put wonderfully concisely by an eloquent young woman, in about three minutes or so, in a TikTok. If you can afford three minutes, hear what she has to say and consider it, maybe. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/3_Cjkig11NA

So maybe you're simply saying that having a deeper connection with others spiritually through religious beliefs and practices in general helps prevent insanity.

No just "being religious" won't help anybody. In fact, there are some religions...say, Santeria, Tibetan traditional Buddhism, occultism of various kinds, paganism, some gnostic cults and so forth, where delusional, reality-detached and immoral states are actually celebrated and welcomed as part of the "religious" practices.

What's necessary is more fundamental than all that. It's a relationship with God -- the one true God, through Jesus Christ. "Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is no other name under heaven, which has been given among men, whereby we must be saved." That's pretty plain. To reject that relationship is to precipitate oneself -- to greater and lesser degrees, of course, depending, as I said, on the nature of the resistance -- into the slippery slope of moral and epistemic confusion outlined in Romans 1.

[MikeNovack]

In fact, there are some religions...say, Santeria, Tibetan traditional Buddhism, occultism of various kinds, paganism, some gnostic cults and so forth, where delusional, reality-detached and immoral states are actually celebrated and welcomed as part of the "religious" practices.

What's necessary is more fundamental than all that. It's a relationship with God -- the one true God, through Jesus Christ.

Here we go again.

Yes I understand, this is your religious belief. Other religions than your one true faith are false. But here you are trying to convince OTHERS of that. How? What evidence do you propose to present?

BESIDES you faith/belief, besides any evidence INTERNAL to your faith/belief, why should others consider your Jesus true and the Orishas of Santeria false?

[Immanuel Can]

Yes I understand, this is your religious belief. Other religions than your one true faith are false.

It's not just mine. It's everyone's, too. Do not Buddhists believe, in spite of their vaunted relativism, that it's best to be a Buddhist? If they didn't, would they not become a Hindu or an Islamist or a Christian? Do not Atheists believe that the best thing is to be an Atheist? Do they not think themselves more rational, scientific and grounded than everybody who is religious? Do not Islamists insist everybody should submit to their "Allah?" Even by the edge of the sword, or to their personal immolation, they believe it. And does not the religious relativist believe that the most compassionate, fair, intelligent and moral position is to be a religious relativist? If he does not, why does he preen himself on his tolerance?

EVERYBODY is an exclusivist, in this sense. EVERYBODY believes that what he believes is better than what everybody else believes, or he would stop believing it. But most of them cannot be right: and this we know because of the Law of Non-Contradiction, not because of any religious preference.

But here you are trying to convince OTHERS of that. How? What evidence do you propose to present?

I present to you the evidence God has presented to you. I present to you creation. I present to you your moral instincts. I present to you your innate awareness of God. I present to you the findings of mathematics, logic and science. I present to you your own self-awareness, your consciousness, your powers of volition and rationality, your own soul -- look at what and who you, yourself are, if you refuse to look at any of the rest of the external evidence.

And above all else, I present to you the evidence of Jeshua Hamashiach...who is God's own pre-eminent evidence of his real existence and His intentions for you.

And now, you get to believe all that or disbelieve.

[MikeNovack]

But here you are trying to convince OTHERS of that. How? What evidence do you propose to present?

I present to you the evidence God has presented to you. I present to you creation. I present to you your moral instincts. I present to you your innate awareness of God. I present to you the findings of mathematics, logic and science. I present to you your own self-awareness, your consciousness, your powers of volition and rationality, your own soul -- look at what and who you, yourself are, if you refuse to look at any of the rest of the external evidence.

And now, you get to believe all that or disbelieve.

But THAT evidence does not lead specifically to the religion YOU believe in. It's not evidence in favor of Christianity. Other people have seen that evidence and it led them to other religions.

And no, exclusivity is a feature of Christianity and Islam. Most religions are concerned only with adherents of that religion. Don't care very much what other people believe in or not. I believe some of these other religions have had times/places where this "everybody must believe as we do" was expressed but not as a general thing.

[Immanuel Can]

But here you are trying to convince OTHERS of that. How? What evidence do you propose to present?

I present to you the evidence God has presented to you. I present to you creation. I present to you your moral instincts. I present to you your innate awareness of God. I present to you the findings of mathematics, logic and science. I present to you your own self-awareness, your consciousness, your powers of volition and rationality, your own soul -- look at what and who you, yourself are, if you refuse to look at any of the rest of the external evidence.

And now, you get to believe all that or disbelieve.

But THAT evidence does not lead specifically to the religion YOU believe in. It's not evidence in favor of Christianity.

Actually it does. But it's only the first step.

And no, exclusivity is a feature of Christianity and Islam. Most religions are concerned only with adherents of that religion.

Are you saying that's more right/noble/fair/whatever than the former? If so, you're being exclusive of Christianity and Islam.

You see, it always reappears. You believe your relativism is better than what I believe. If you didn't, wouldn't you be insane not to believe something different, instead? But you do. And that's why you don't like what you perceive as my exclusivism -- which is more properly the Bible's exclusivism, not mine -- and think you should take me on about it. You are exclusive of any belief that is exclusive.

And the most exclusivist are often the most superficially inclusivist, ironically. For as I said to AJ, what they do, essentially, is say to all the religions they embrace in their warm porridge of tolerance, "None of you has anything special to offer, that the others do not also have, in some form. So you're all optional, and have nothing particularly valuable to offer the world." In fact, to the radical Western inclusivist, all religions turn out to be nothing more than alternate expressions of (surprise, surprise) Western inclusivist values.

Don't care very much what other people believe in or not.

Yes, I can see that. That's radical Western inclusivism. It actually can include so many things, because it doesn't believe any of them are really important, distinct or unique.

But good luck selling it to anybody who thinks his/her religion is special. They may be more irritated or hurt than happy that you submerge and drown the particularities of their culture and beliefs in the tepid bath of liberal Western relativism.

[MikeNovack]

Don't care very much what other people believe in or not.

Yes, I can see that. That's radical Western inclusivism. It actually can include so many things, because it doesn't believe any of them are really important, distinct or unique.

But good luck selling it to anybody who thinks his/her religion is special. They may be more irritated or hurt than happy that you submerge and drown the particularities of their culture and beliefs in the tepid bath of liberal Western relativism.
[/quote]

NO -- it is NOT "radical Western inclusiveness". Nor is it not believing one's own religion is the best, only true one, etc. It is believing that regardless you have no business ramming yours down anybody else's throat.

Do you imagine a Jew cares that you are a Christian? That a Buddhist cares, a Shintoist cares? A Hindu cares? That does NOT mean tht any of them are "relativist". They just think that what you believe about gods is your business.

[Immanuel Can]

Don't care very much what other people believe in or not.

Yes, I can see that. That's radical Western inclusivism. It actually can include so many things, because it doesn't believe any of them are really important, distinct or unique.

But good luck selling it to anybody who thinks his/her religion is special. They may be more irritated or hurt than happy that you submerge and drown the particularities of their culture and beliefs in the tepid bath of liberal Western relativism.

NO -- it is NOT "radical Western inclusiveness". Nor is it not believing one's own religion is the best, only true one, etc. It is believing that regardless you have no business ramming yours down anybody else's throat.

Well, first of all, it's utterly impossible to "ram" anything "down anybody's throat" by email. If you can figure out how that can even happen, you're more talented than I. But secondly, it's not offensive to tell somebody you think something they don't. If the rules are, "Don't tell me what I don't like to hear," then it's bound to be a short and insincere exchange, at best.

Now, I don't like relativism, particularly. I think it's rather silly and preening. But I speak to relativists, and I listen to their arguments. I don't get all bent out of shape when told something contrary to my worldview. But they often do, because they've swallowed the delusion that dishonest agreement is just polite. And sure, they get testy when they feel their idol of universal inclusiveness totter. But that's the price of believing irrational things; when reason is introduced, it can get a little painful for the relativist.

Relativism doesn't make a lick of sense, and runs afoul of the basics of logic at the first hurdle. It cannot be the case that all religions are equally true. If they contradict, at most one of them can be. And that's by the laws of logic, not because I say so.

They just think that what you believe about gods is your business.

I don't think they do. If they did, they wouldn't argue or preach. But as for those who do think belief is merely private, try that strategy with anything else in the real world -- say, gravity, bacteriology, or Bengal tigers -- and you'll soon find out that not being told the truth can be a very bad thing.

As the old Jewish proverb says, "An honest answer is like a kiss on the lips." (Prov. 24:26) So you're welcome.