> Certainly true, but the fact that the line is fuzzy seems to me an indication that it wasn't drawn by God. Fuzziness is more characteristic of nature.

That seems like quite a leap to me, but even if we agree that there's an objective good and an objective bad, then there must be some standard for the good. I think that standard is God.

This isn't meant to be a proof (and it's very hand-wavy), but that's my intuition.

> Then you should read this...

Seems to be in the same vein and Dawkins, et al.: that we somehow evolved this moral intuition. I think that's a faulty position because of a simple thought experiment. Consider a universe where nothing evolved. For whatever reason, there was no Big Bang, and things just popped into existence. Would there be no morality in such a universe (because we didn't evolve it)? I find that very hard to believe.

> there must be some standard for the good

And there is: good is that which improves the reproductive fitness of the entities that practice it.

> For whatever reason, there was no Big Bang, and things just popped into existence. Would there be no morality in such a universe (because we didn't evolve it)?

That's right. (To be precise, there might be morality, but it would be whatever the entity that created this universe decided it should be.)

> I find that very hard to believe.

Why? We actually have some data points because we actually create such universes ourselves nowadays. We call them computer games or virtual reality environments, and the moral rules at work in some of them are very different from the real world. The poster child for this is Grand Theft Auto, where the disconnect between the moral rules of that world and ours causes some people a great deal of cognitive dissonance.

As long as we're doing thought experiments here's one for you: suppose God told you that it was OK to force people to eat their own children. Would that make it in fact OK? Or is there some moral standard that transcends God that makes it not OK to do certain things even if God says it's OK? (BTW, in case you don't recognize it, this question was first raised by Plato in a famous dialogue called Euthyphro. It's worth reading. And BTW2, if you think that this example is too extreme you should read Jeremiah 19:9.)

> And there is: good is that which improves the reproductive fitness of the entities that practice it.

You can make a barometer for morality out of anything. I could make a theory where "greed is good", to quote Gordon Gekko. But that wasn't my point; rather, my point was that there is a Good, with a capital G, that transcends any artificial barometer. In virtue ethics, this is called "flourishing".

> As long as we're doing thought experiments here's one for you: suppose God told you that it was OK to force people to eat their own children. Would that make it in fact OK? Or is there some moral standard that transcends God that makes it not OK to do certain things even if God says it's OK? (BTW, in case you don't recognize it, this question was first raised by Plato in a famous dialogue called Euthyphro. It's worth reading. And BTW2, if you think that this example is too extreme you should read Jeremiah 19:9.)

The argument is actually Aristotle's, Plato just wrote it down, but yes I'm very familiar with it. It's cute, but I kind of like Ockham's counter-argument. He argues that the only "rule" God is bound by is the rule of non-contradiction. That means that even God can't make "square circles" or "a ≠ a". This doesn't mean he's not omnipotent, just that there's some logical consistency to what is possible. If you buy that premise, then God would never tell someone to do something immoral, as God is the embodiment of all that is good, virtuous, holy, etc.

What you're citing from Jeremiah is a prophecy, and those are notoriously complex to decipher (and much is lost in translation). Admittedly, I haven't studied Jeremiah for a while, but if I remember correctly, some of it is metaphorical.

> You can make a barometer for morality out of anything.

Yes, that's right. That was the point I was making with Grand Theft Auto, where you get rewarded for committing what in this world are considered crimes. That's what you get in created worlds: the creator gets to decide everything: the laws of physics, morality, the color of the sky. Everything.

But in this world, which operates according to the laws of physics (of which evolution is a consequence), morality is not arbitrary. Good is that which results from genes building brains which have moral intuitions that produce behaviors that increase the reproductive fitness of those genes. What is it about this idea that you find so distasteful? I think it's rather beautiful actually. It gets you out of some rather thorny problems (see below).

> The argument is actually Aristotle's, Plato just wrote it down

You mean Socrates, not Aristotle. (Whee! This game of scholarly one-upsmanship is so much fun!)

> If you buy that premise, then God would never tell someone to do something immoral

Well, yeah, because then what God says is moral by definition. If God says forcing someone to eat their children is moral, then it's moral.

BTW, it seems to me that having morality grate on your intuitions like that (the idea that forcing someone to eat their children is moral does grate on your intuitions, doesn't it?) is exactly what you would expect if man is fallen. That's what it means for man to be fallen, doesn't it? That our moral intuitions are unreliable and we have to rely on God for moral guidance? In which case who are we to second-guess the Word of God?

> What you're citing from Jeremiah is a prophecy, and those are notoriously complex to decipher

I dunno, it seems pretty straightforward to me.

"Thus saith the LORD... I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters..."

God is making a promise here, so there are logically only three possibilities: either 1) he's bluffing (i.e. lying) and if push comes to shove he won't actually do the things he says he's going to do, or 2) he will do those things despite the fact that they are immoral or, 3) forcing people to eat their own children is moral. (BTW, compare Jeremiah to Exodus 11:5 where we know that God actually made good on his threat.)

But I didn't have to choose Jeremiah. I just picked that example for its shock value, and because it isn't widely known. There are dozens of other examples I could have chosen. Exodus 11:5, for example, where God actually does follow through (in Exodus 12:29). Or Deuteronomy 21:18-21 (disobeying your parents is a capital crime) or 22:28-29 (the penalty for raping an unwed virgin is 50 shekels).

But my point here is not to rehash the depravities of the OT, it is to make the point that logically there are only two possibilities: either our moral intuitions are reliable, or they are not. If they are reliable, then we don't need God as a moral guide, and if they are not reliable then we would expect any reliable source of moral guidance to be at odds with our moral intuitions (that's what it means to be unreliable). How can this not be the case?

> But in this world, which operates according to the laws of physics (of which evolution is a consequence), morality is not arbitrary. Good is that which results from genes building brains which have moral intuitions that produce behaviors that increase the reproductive fitness of those genes. What is it about this idea that you find so distasteful? I think it's rather beautiful actually. It gets you out of some rather thorny problems (see below).

I think that's where we disagree. I think morality is more than an evolutionary byproduct. I think that's reductive (and probably wrong). For example, what evolutionary value does caring for elders or caring for the handicapped have? What about charity? Yet, we find these things "good".

> You mean Socrates, not Aristotle.

Whoops, duh, brain fart.

> That our moral intuitions are unreliable and we have to rely on God for moral guidance? In which case who are we to second-guess the Word of God?

Not necessarily. In fact many philosophers, including Aquinas, believed that our rationality was divinely inspired. If that's the case, moral intuitions could be correct, and our human nature could be the culprit -- our default tendency to do bad when we ought to do good.

> I dunno, it seems pretty straightforward to me.

Okay, we can get into it.

This is the entire text (Jeremiah Ch 19). It's important to look at context, because I think it's really unfair to cherry-pick a random text, give it a 30-second look-over and pretend we understand it.

19 This is what the Lord says: “Go and buy a clay jar from a potter. Take along some of the elders of the people and of the priests 2 and go out to the Valley of Ben Hinnom, near the entrance of the Potsherd Gate. There proclaim the words I tell you, 3 and say, ‘Hear the word of the Lord, you kings of Judah and people of Jerusalem. This is what the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, says: Listen! I am going to bring a disaster on this place that will make the ears of everyone who hears of it tingle. 4 For they have forsaken me and made this a place of foreign gods; they have burned incense in it to gods that neither they nor their ancestors nor the kings of Judah ever knew, and they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent. 5 They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal—something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind. 6 So beware, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when people will no longer call this place Topheth or the Valley of Ben Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter.

7 “‘In this place I will ruin[a] the plans of Judah and Jerusalem. I will make them fall by the sword before their enemies, at the hands of those who want to kill them, and I will give their carcasses as food to the birds and the wild animals. 8 I will devastate this city and make it an object of horror and scorn; all who pass by will be appalled and will scoff because of all its wounds. 9 I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, and they will eat one another’s flesh because their enemies will press the siege so hard against them to destroy them.’

10 “Then break the jar while those who go with you are watching, 11 and say to them, ‘This is what the Lord Almighty says: I will smash this nation and this city just as this potter’s jar is smashed and cannot be repaired. They will bury the dead in Topheth until there is no more room. 12 This is what I will do to this place and to those who live here, declares the Lord. I will make this city like Topheth. 13 The houses in Jerusalem and those of the kings of Judah will be defiled like this place, Topheth—all the houses where they burned incense on the roofs to all the starry hosts and poured out drink offerings to other gods.’”

14 Jeremiah then returned from Topheth, where the Lord had sent him to prophesy, and stood in the court of the Lord’s temple and said to all the people, 15 “This is what the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, says: ‘Listen! I am going to bring on this city and all the villages around it every disaster I pronounced against them, because they were stiff-necked and would not listen to my words.’”

From what I can tell, this is the story:

- God is angry because his people (the Jews) have not followed his rules (at the time, the ten commandments)

- He has given them many chances to repent, and yet they still serve idols (Baal being one of them)

- He is therefore punishing them

- The punishment will be the razing of the city (Jerusalem from what I can tell) by some unspecified tribes (probably the Canaanites)

- The siege will be so terrible, the citizens of Jerusalem will have to resort to cannibalism

- He will do this not just as punishment, but also as a reminder for future generations

Now, the idea isn't that God is "forcing people to eat their children", just that this will be the result of the cannibalism occuring due to the terrible siege Jerusalem will be under. Again, cherry-picking texts is unproductive and uncharitable. The "eating of children" is very clearly a byproduct of the punishment of the Jews via the sacking and sieging of Jerusalem.

> But my point here is not to rehash the depravities of the OT, it is to make the point that logically there are only two possibilities: either our moral intuitions are reliable, or they are not. If they are reliable, then we don't need God as a moral guide...

You're attacking a strawman here. I'm not sure if we need God as a moral guide (maybe or maybe not -- there are theories that many pre-Christian people may have been saved without any exposure to Jesus and just by living a fruitful and moral life), my only point was that my moral intuition points to an objective Good (with a capital G). If such a Good truly exists, than God must be the source of that Good.

> In fact many philosophers, including Aquinas, believed that our rationality was divinely inspired.

Sure, but I don't care what Aquinas thinks, I'm interested in what you think.

> I'm not sure if we need God as a moral guide.

Ah, sorry for making that assumption. The vast majority of Christians I've met say we do. In fact, you may be the first self-identified Christian who has denied this. (Um, do you deny it? You're being kind of equivocal here. I don't want to get myself into trouble again by making more unwarranted assumptions.)

BTW, are you familiar with the story of Eliezer and the Carob Tree from the Talmud?

Maybe I should back up and ask: you wrote:

> I believe that man is essentially fallen and we were redeemed by the grace of God through his son Jesus.

What does that mean? In particular, what does it mean to be "fallen" and "redeemed"?

Since you (AFAICT) admit the possibility that the Bible may not be a reliable guide to morality, this is a bit of a moot point, but I just want to respond to this:

> the idea isn't that God is "forcing people to eat their children"

Except that the language is plain: "I [God] will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters...", not "They will..."

> what evolutionary value does caring for elders or caring for the handicapped have? What about charity? Yet, we find these things "good".

That's a long story, which is layed out in detail in Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene". But the TL;DR is that there is survival value for humans in organizing into groups. Individual humans cannot survive in the wild. Even breeding pairs cannot survive; the minimal unit of human reproduction is a few dozen individuals (it really does take a village!) In such a group there are divisions of labor, and even poor and handicapped individuals can make net positive contributions, particularly as technology gets more advanced and resources become less scarce. The full story is, of course, quite a bit more nuanced than that. But the point is that this is not a mystery. How evolution gives rise to altruism is well understood, and it is observed in other species as well.

> Sure, but I don't care what Aquinas thinks, I'm interested in what you think.

Aquinas is a lot smarter than I am :) He probably has better arguments.

> In fact, you may be the first self-identified Christian who has denied this. (Um, do you deny it? You're being kind of equivocal here. I don't want to get myself into trouble again by making more unwarranted assumptions.)

I believe God is the source of Good, but I don't think we necessarily need to believe in God to be good (in a moral sense). Maybe I'm being confusing, here's my basic argument in a nicely-animated video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxiAikEk2vU

> What does that mean? In particular, what does it mean to be "fallen" and "redeemed"?

Fallen morally. Simply put, man's nature is one of evil. Since God is good, there's clearly a disconnect between man and God. We are all sinners, and I believe (as the Jews of the OT believed), that a price needs to be paid for our transgressions. In the Old Testament, the High Priest would sacrifice a lamb or a goat and God would forgive the people (this was done yearly). In the New Testament, Jesus gave the ultimate sacrifice, and he essentially "stands in" as the symbolic sacrifice of the OT. That's how we are redeemed.

> Except that the language is plain: "I [God] will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters...", not "They will..."

I mean you're not even doing your due diligence here. I clearly quoted the entire text, and outlined exactly what it says. You seem to be stuck on this "eating children" thing -- which is simply the outcome of Jerusalem being sacked. Let me ask again: do you understand the context of the text? Do you understand what the prophecy is saying? Do you understand why it's saying it? I tried to be as clear as possible. You're harping on the semantics of a throwaway sentence (which, by the way, has been translated from Hebrew, to Greek, to Latin, and to English), so the fine distinction between "They will" as opposed to "I will cause" is just silly unless you look at the original (Hebrew) text.

The Dawkins altruism/evolution stuff I know about and as I said before, I think it's reductive and misses the point. You obviously think otherwise, which is perfectly fine. As an aside, I think scientists doing philosophy is just as unproductive as philosophers doing science.

> here's my basic argument in a nicely-animated video

OK, well, we may just have to agree to disagree on this. It is simply not true that without God there is no objective standard for morality. There is. In fact, it is the exact opposite: with God there is no objective standard for morality because we cannot know God except through faith. The 9/11 hijackers sincerely believed that they were doing the work of God. On what possible basis could you object?

> do you understand the context of the text?

Oh yes.

> the fine distinction between "They will" as opposed to "I will cause" is just silly unless you look at the original (Hebrew) text.

Oh, but I did. I am a native Hebrew speaker, so I can tell you from firsthand knowledge that the translation is accurate. Especially in context it is absolutely clear that God is not predicting, he is threatening. He even says why:

"Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring evil upon this place... Because they have forsaken me... I will cause them to fall by the sword before their enemies, and by the hands of them that seek their lives: and their carcases will I give to be meat for the fowls of the heaven, and for the beasts of the earth... and I will make this city desolate..."

All of those passages are accurate translations. Everywhere that God says, "I will" the verb is unambiguously first-person. And the verb translated as "I will cause them to eat" is unambiguous too, especially in context. Go look at: http://biblehub.com/jeremiah/19-9.htm There are twenty-two different English translations there, and they all agree on this.

> You seem to be stuck on this "eating children" thing

Not at all. There are dozens of other examples I could have chosen, and I cited a few of them above. I only focused on that passage because of how clear cut it is. There are not a lot of people who will defend forced cannibalism as a moral act (though I have met some Christians who will. I must say I respect them for their intellectual honesty, though not for their moral judgement.)

> OK, well, we may just have to agree to disagree on this.

Yep I think that's where we disagree! Like I said at the very beginning, I don't think this is a question of logic, one can only use these tools as a rough guide. Belief in God is purely non-rational.

Anyway, I enjoyed speaking with you, even though we may disagree :)