Moral and Scientific Objections to Christianity

PrefaceCon has not provided any positive contentions, thus it appears he will be focussing mostly on defence within this debate. Which is fine, however in the process he forfeits the right to direct the debate in the direction he so chooses. Note that I did not actually present the problem of evil within this debate (which Con attempted to address – my arguments address moral problems in general with the nature and practice of Christianity.C1. Christianity hinders moral thoughtCon argues that government intervention causes changes in moral stances. Well if that is the case then I fail to see the problem here, since if people’s values change, regardless of the cause of such, then people are going to want different things. Given that virtually any and all moral thought comes back to societal interests & desires, then this should be hardly surprising.I am not obliged to answer the loaded questions of “what is good, what is evil?”, since such a question doesn’t necessarily have a coherent answer. Moral thought extends far beyond simplistic moral imperitive philosophy that is prevalent in Christianity. Contextualism for example rules actions preferable or less preferable depending on context, social contract theory looks at how we maintain and value our current social construct. Even applied ethics compatible with nihilism or relativism are possible and all would have something to say about what we ought to do. My argument was that Christianity hinders investigation into the question of applied and meta-ethics.Thus, regardless of how “good” or “evil” are defined, my point stands. Christianity promotes a one-dimensional manner of thinking which is intrinsically divorced from the values of people on Earth right now – leading to actions for the apparent benefit of a being with questionable epistemological integrity. IF one was going to centre their entire moral philosophy over something which is so powerfully motivating, yet so demonstrably questionable, then that leaves the theist in a morally dangerous position. I cited examples where religious motivation had demonstrably destructive consequences. Hence the fact that it promotes such is not something that can be realistically denied.1.Evil is not defined. Therefore, the assessment of the statements cannot be validatedThe definition of ‘evil’ is irrelevant here, since moral frameworks do not mandate it to have a meaning.2. If evil were defined, what would justify the definition as being the right one?Again, irrelevant, and the point of “secular values being right and Christian values being wrong” is a complete red herring. The very notion of “values being right” is loaded as it presupposes some naïve notion of moral realism – and I am tempted to retort here that this is a clear demonstration of exactly my point. Con seems unable to entertain the notion of other moral systems apart from naive realism that Christianity advocates.Moral philosophy addresses the questions of moral motivations, “why” we should, and “ought” to do certain actions, preference, desires, values, and what would be the most preferable social constructs and effect execution of law and justice, etc.1. Which person described above, according to secular views. would be considered moral?This entire question is a red herring, and on most philosophies are equivalent to asking “what is the colour of jealousy”, since asking for the brute “moral or immoral value of an act” is incoherent.Christian morals give an answer. Secular morals do notThis again completely misses the point of the contention (hence a plain red herring), since it regards moral thought, rather than the moral systems themselves. Also even if it was the case that secular morals give no answer (and many such systems would not, since the very question itself would be nonsensical as already argued), then Pro is essentially stating that “using a bad answer is better than accepting you don’t have a good one”. Given that our morals dictate what our actions are, then the person who errs on the side of caution is going to be less prone to destructive actions than those who go with the first answer they get. This also affirms exactly my point – Con is willing to accept an answer and ignore any and all moral thought on the issue first. It hinders moral thought.Without Christianity we truly cannot answer that, because according to Christian morals, ALL life is valuable.This is a complete non-sequitur, the conclusion “without Christianity we truly cannot answer that” does not follow from the premise “because according to Christian morals, ALL life is valuable.” Just because Christianity can claim an answer, from one narrow perspective, doesn’t follow that others cannot. That is a blatant logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.There is no "healthy dialogue and investigation" needed. How can con argue that not every life is valuable without coming off as cold and callous?If this is representive of Christianity’s position on moral thought, then I would highlight this as a blatant example of hindrance of such moral thought. Con is unwilling to even entertain the notion that not every life is valuable, for example.C2. Christianity entails questionable beliefs/motivationsNote that I only provided a handful of obvious examples, Christianity in fact does have a very profound effect in virtually every area of moral judgement and societal values. See following table of a 2011 Pew Survey:[ http://tinyurl.com...] Clearly increased Catholicism causes increased conservativism, and consequently skewed values over multiple sects. Given these are a % of a large US population, it’s hardly insignificant.Further, Con pretty much concedes that said questionable beliefs puts one in a position of self-assumed authority, and hence executing destructive acts from that authority that would not have been possible without it. It doesn’t matter whether or not the Christian community generally condemns it, since that is not the point being made here (this is another of Con’s red herrings). Less destructive acts, yet prevalent are the innumerable Bible belt homosexuals frequently demonised by said families on religious grounds, for example. [ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...],Note that I never said hell was bad, I only argued it is a device for fear, and hence moral motivation. It gives people powerful motivation to perform actions where that would not have done otherwise. It removes one’s ‘erring on the side of caution’ where it would not have without that belief. Hence, the epistemologically questionable belief in hell ‘forces a person’s hand’ in action – and given my points made in C1 – that Christianity hinders moral thought – it entails actions that are often destructive, and far against the interests of the vast majority of people.Note that Con’s argument from salvation only applies to those who adhere to salvation purely via. faith, it does not apply to any who believe in salvation via. works. Moreover Con implicitly concedes that this fear does indeed exist. He would need to argue that the fear of hell positively doesn’t exist for Christians to rebut my arguments. Moreover, given Pro’s response to this, he has inspired another brief contention relevant to this debate.C3. Christianity is a mind-trapBelievers in Christianity have a belief in hell, either via. works or purely by faith. Even if a Christian feel safe from hell by faith, it leads to another problem. It traps the person within his existing belief set of Christianity. It makes it risky (from the Christian’s perspective) to entertain ideas outside of Christianity, since it would entail losing one’s faith, and hence leaving them vulnerable to eternal damnation in hell. Thus, the Christian would be unwilling (and sensibly so, given the state of the belief system he is in) to undergo free philosophical thought. RebuttalsI have absolutely no idea what Con’s argument/question/statement is supposed to mean.