The Former Conservative recently offered a critique of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry's homophobic "Questions for Homosexuals" a while back, to which CARM leader Matthew Slick replied. The Former Conservative offered a second response, and I encourage anyone who has not followed the exchange to go read it in its entirety.
One of the things that came up in the protracted discussion was CARM's strange beliefs about morality. It seems that CARM understands that there can only be three sources for morality (and only the first one is valid in CARM's mind):
This list demonstrates that the folks at CARM might want to invest a bit more into the "Research" part of their organization's name. There are a multitude of diverse bases for developing a moral framework, as evidenced by the number of philosophers, both ancient and modern, who have explored the topic of morality and offered many different methods for determining morality.
As a devotee o the Norse gods, I would actually suggest that my morality is loosely based on more nuanced versions of all three above points. For example, my gods have a lot of advice to offer as to what actions and what virtues and actions are considered noble and moral. However, these are offered as advice rather than inviolable commandments.[1] Instead, they offer advice, suggestions, and reasons why certain courses of action are preferable and more worthy of praise.
This offers something for individual reason and reflection to work with. This does make morality somewhat individualistic. This is appropriate as morality is itself individualistic. I am responsible to make sure that I act in a manner that is moral. I am not responsible for anyone else's morality or lack thereof. So I need to reason through what right action is based on the understanding of my situations, the virtues that I and my gods deem noble and valuable.
This sort of individual consideration of morality is not the narcissistic "do what I want" attitude that the folks at CARM or like-minded people consider it to be. It is possible to use one's own reason and thought processes, yet start with some sort of basis that leads you to a rugged moral framework from which to act in an appropriate manner.
In reality, CARM's knee-jerk rejection of the application of personal reason and reflection on matters of reality suggests an anti-reason bias in their approach to the world. Of the three above versions of morality that they perceive, I suspect the last is the one they trust least, as it affirms the individual's need for an external absolute authority to dictate right and wrong to them. They simply believe that human beings are incapable of such moral reasoning on their own.
That suggestion is almost as insulting as it is frightening.
Notes:
[1] To put it bluntly, a bumper sticker that said "Freyja said it, I believe it, that settles it," would not be a highly marketable product.
One of the things that came up in the protracted discussion was CARM's strange beliefs about morality. It seems that CARM understands that there can only be three sources for morality (and only the first one is valid in CARM's mind):
- A Supreme Being offering inviolable declarations of what is right and what is wrong.
- A societal system that offers near-inviolable declarations of what is right and what is wrong.
- Individuals who decide for themselves what is right or wrong based on what feels right.
This list demonstrates that the folks at CARM might want to invest a bit more into the "Research" part of their organization's name. There are a multitude of diverse bases for developing a moral framework, as evidenced by the number of philosophers, both ancient and modern, who have explored the topic of morality and offered many different methods for determining morality.
As a devotee o the Norse gods, I would actually suggest that my morality is loosely based on more nuanced versions of all three above points. For example, my gods have a lot of advice to offer as to what actions and what virtues and actions are considered noble and moral. However, these are offered as advice rather than inviolable commandments.[1] Instead, they offer advice, suggestions, and reasons why certain courses of action are preferable and more worthy of praise.
This offers something for individual reason and reflection to work with. This does make morality somewhat individualistic. This is appropriate as morality is itself individualistic. I am responsible to make sure that I act in a manner that is moral. I am not responsible for anyone else's morality or lack thereof. So I need to reason through what right action is based on the understanding of my situations, the virtues that I and my gods deem noble and valuable.
This sort of individual consideration of morality is not the narcissistic "do what I want" attitude that the folks at CARM or like-minded people consider it to be. It is possible to use one's own reason and thought processes, yet start with some sort of basis that leads you to a rugged moral framework from which to act in an appropriate manner.
In reality, CARM's knee-jerk rejection of the application of personal reason and reflection on matters of reality suggests an anti-reason bias in their approach to the world. Of the three above versions of morality that they perceive, I suspect the last is the one they trust least, as it affirms the individual's need for an external absolute authority to dictate right and wrong to them. They simply believe that human beings are incapable of such moral reasoning on their own.
That suggestion is almost as insulting as it is frightening.
Notes:
[1] To put it bluntly, a bumper sticker that said "Freyja said it, I believe it, that settles it," would not be a highly marketable product.
Leave a comment