We promote rational individualism, and are opposed to those who assert incoherent supernatural claims.
Zachary Moore Permalink
"Faith and Reason" ... arent those two things mutually exclusive?
It depends a bit on how you define them. Kevin's gone on record rejecting the Hebrews 11 definition of faith as meaningful to Christianity.What it really describes is the desire of Christians (specifically, Christian apologists) to preserve intellectual honesty while still maintaining their religious belief.Not an easy task, by any means...
I think god could be replaced in this argument very easily to make it sound more valid... 1. If Societies do not exist, then there are no objective moral values and duties.2. There are objective moral values and duties.3. Therefore Societies exists.I do not think objective moral values and duties are derived from any god. I think the are grown through social interaction.
I agree- his first premise is easily the weakest (although I would contest the way he defines "objective moral values" also).
Is this the same William Lane Craig who claims the genocide is acceptable if God decrees it?The same Craig who writes ''The act was morally obligatory for the Israeli soldiers in virtue of God’s command, even though, had they undertaken it on their on initiative, it would have been wrong.'From Slaughter of the Canaanites The very same act is either right or wrong, according to William Lane Craig, depending upon who ordered it.How then can the same act always be either morally right or morally wrong?
If God created all of physical reality including all life then He has the right to set up the rules anyway He wishes. He gave us life and He alone has the right to take it away. In other words, He "owns" us. He also has the right to interact with the Creation in anyway He deems necessary to fulfill His purposes. Why should God be obligated to obey the same rules that He has given to us? As a parent, do you follow the same rules you give to your kids?
Create a Link