Whilst the self-sacrifice aspect may seem admirable, we have to put it into context. Consider the following metaphor: ten criminals, convicted of crimes such as murder, rape, theft, robbery, perjury and the like, are standing at the hangman’s noose. A man in the crowd without any criminal wrongdoing feels for their plight and volunteers to take their place, pardoning the criminals, and letting them go free. The innocent man is then hung until dead.

The idea of penal substitution is wrong on many counts because:
- It is not moral to punish the innocent for the wrongs of others.
- Giving pardon does not absolve the wrongdoer’s responsibility for their own actions.
- Substitution and pardon would confer upon its beneficiaries an unlimited permission to sin.
It is not just to leave the wrongdoer unpunished.

I don’t think Dawkins was trying to get a cheap laugh regarding the crucifixion story; he just seemed genuinely baffled that people thought penal substitution (in the form of torture and execution) was logically acceptable. Hopefully that made sense.

Accordingly, I won’t be publishing any more atheist/Christian-related comments on this post.

Of course I haven’t looked at every religion. But nor do I claim to be an expert on other religions to the extent that some atheists purport to be of the Bible.

You purport that a significant proportion of Australians are ignorant of the Bible and by extension, Christianity.

How aware are you of atheism? of taoism? of shintoism? of jenguism? of any non-anglo/caucasian centric religion or domination?

Has there come a point in your life where you thought shintoism was just not for you and that Jesus and his mob trumps over the east?

My point is, it is ridiculuos for you to say suggest that non-believers have not met the “real” jesus when you and many like yourself probably have not explored every possible avenue on earth.

>> “I don’t understand James frustration with Christians if morals are subjective”

I have no problem with that ^. However, The original accusation leveled at atheism (on Q&A and repeated here) was:

” If we take God out of the picture, on what grounds do we establish morality?” .. “how do you decide what is right or wrong? ”

The manner in which this (perennial) question is asked suggests that without the “absolute morals” of Christianity, there would be no real morality, as everyone would just do what they feel like. In other words, we need the absolute morality of God in order to behave properly.

I am simply stating that that’s utter hogwash! Mainly, for the following reasons (I’ll summarize the discussion for you!)

1. There is no “absolute” morality, or if there is, we have to use subjective decision-making anyway to determine what god’s morals are. (First, you have to “choose” the particular religion, then the particular denomination, then cherry-pick the bits of the Bible we subjectively feel good with)

2. The bits of Christian morality that are apparently good overlap with the good bits of many other religions, and humanism. (The Golden Rule – not the exclusive domain of religion)

3. Christian morals change over time, so by definition CAN NOT be absolute. (Stoning children in or out? Eating shellfish in or out? Slavery in or out? Homosexuality in or out?)

4. Religion is not needed for morality, nor to explain morality; there is an evolutionary explanation for the sense of empathy which humans have.

5. God-given morality is not really “morality” per se, but merely following rules without question, under threat of torture for disobeying.

6. Christian morality is often wicked and evil (immoral, in fact). The oft-cited examples are slavery, subjugation of women, and the hypocrisy of putting to death people for various reasons despite the commandment “thou shalt not kill”.

In short, Christian morality is at best a complete mess, at worst a deadly dangerous preoccupation.

So, my frustration with subjective Christian morals ONLY comes into play when said christians claim Christianity is necessary to have morals, which they frequently do.

Does that help?

Further, you ask:

>>”Is the only basis of our morals our empathy?”

Well my question would then be: What else could it be? Is the only other basis of your morals the fear of punishment, or what? If so, then you’re not really moral at all, just acting to save your own skin.

1. Well, you can’t know there is no god, and know that knowing if there is a god is unknowable, if I can put it that way Rejecting the Christian God merely makes you a non-Christian (thought it sounds like you’re rejecting the ancient Jewish God, not Jesus, would you agree?). Your agnosticism about another deity is, I’m sorry to say, something Mr Dawkins & Hitchens would frown upon. The nu-Atheism creed is no evidence, no proof, no belief. Opening the door to some other phenomena of which you have no proof *other than* the apparent self-evident wonder of the world is a big no-no, I’m afraid. Again, you’re not being consistent to your professed atheism — that’s agnosticism, and Mr Dawkins and Mr Hitchens would be most displeased

2. Yes, I agree. It’s not an argument for God, it was an argument that you’re being inconsistent I can bare the thought — I don’t have to like it, though. That’s what I think is the big cop out in nu-Atheism — everything is utterly pointless, but don’t you dare admit it! Best have a smile on your face and say everything is wonderful! At least the previous big names in atheism could cop it
3. It’s not foolish to seek pleasure. It’s foolish to delude yourself from the pointlessness of the universe and our existence with pleasure. In that sense, if heaven in whatever form it takes is total pleasure, good for me! Why would you not choose that?

Now, there are legitimate beefs you could have with OT Yahweh, I have no problem admitting that, but so what? I’m not an OT Jew, I’m a Christian, and if the Christ in Christian was on the money when he was alive, I’m not particularly terrified of boredom in heaven. If you reject various interpretations of scripture, fine. There are many, many denominations as I’m sure you know — Christians have all kinds of views. Rejecting a particular view is hardly a knock down argument that defeats Christianity.

4. “Why? I don’t see that at all. I don’t look at a picture of a snowflake and think “Gosh, it’s so pretty and detailed that the snow fairy must be a wonderful designer”. In the same way I don’t look at the universe and think “Gosh, the creator must be awesome!””

Yes, neither do I. Again, we can happily agree that God isn’t handcrafting individual snow flakes as they fall from the sky To be consistent, what you should think is this: “Wow, my brain triggers happy chemicals when my eyes see a snowflake.” That’s it, that’s all you can say. There is no such thing as “pretty” — it’s merely a construct your brain uses to interpret incoming stimuli. What you should be asking is, why is my brain like this? Why has it evolved in this way? What is the point — is there something bigger going on, or is it all meaningless?

5. Yes, there is a binary decision to be made. Either life and our existence is meaningful, or it isn’t. You can’t have it both ways as an atheist. Now, of course that doesn’t necessarily lead to a god, or Christian God, or whatever, but that’s not the question. The question is: do you accept life and our existence is meaningful, or are you going to be consistent with nu-Atheism and say it is not?

Can you accept that, “at bottom, [there is] no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference”?

@Luke,

1. Agnosticism, maybe, but atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. Atheism simply says I have no belief in a god or gods. Agnosticism is a statement about whether the existence of god is KNOWABLE or not. Now, I am a gnostic atheist as far as Christianity is concerned (ie. I am CERTAIN there is no Christian god). As to the existence of some other deistic identity or other phenomenon which caused our existence, I happily admit that I’m agnostic.

2. Coming back to your “chills down the spine” in the face of nihilism… that’s a completely different argument to the point which kicked off this dicussion (we were talking about whether atheists can be moral, originally).

Now, your admission that the thought of no god sends “chills down your spine” is in NO WAY an argument for god… it’s simply an argument from personal desire.

In other words, you’re saying “I can’t bear the thought that there isn’t a god, therefore there must be one”.

It’s akin to me buying a lottery ticket and saying “I can’t bear the thought that I’m not going to win a million dollars, therefore this lottery ticket MUST be a winning one!”

Do you see? Not an argument at all,really.

3. Now, even if there is a Christian god, why does that thought not send chills down your spine as well? Frankly, as I said before, I can imagine no worse fate than spending infinity worshipping a capricious deity such as Yahweh (not to mention the thought of enjoying myself in his presence knowing all those poor people were suffering below me in Hell, but no matter…)

What is so great about Christianity that DOESN’T ultimately involve pleasure for yourself? (Remember, us hedonistic atheists are fools to seek pleasure!).

4. : >> LUKE said “That meaning and wonder are so self-evident should be a bit of a clue that there’s something more going on, don’t you think?”

Why? I don’t see that at all. I don’t look at a picture of a snowflake and think “Gosh, it’s so pretty and detailed that the snow fairy must be a wonderful designer”. In the same way I don’t look at the universe and think “Gosh, the creator must be awesome!”

5. Finally, (I think I already said this) but you seem to be stuck in binary mode: It’s either the Christian God, or nothing! Can you not see past those two alternatives, and why must you pick one? Why not be satisfied with the answer that “there is no answer”? Again, I suspect personal desire for meaning (as well as indoctrination from childhood, perhaps – were you parents christian too, by any chance??) are forming your conclusions for you.

I didn’t catch the Q&A discussion last night, but I did catch this one. Its all go here! I don’t where to start (or if i even should, there has been lots said, and I don’t know where James finds the time (and since I have drafted this, even more posts have come in)- but hey its the Internet, the place for anonymous discussion behind computers that are each connected far far away).

If some [arbitrary] standard (because there are absolutely no absolutes) of morality is all that Christianity is assumed to be, then Christianity has been miss defined and reduced to something that is crippling. I have no doubt that James believes he has a higher morality than any Christian; in fact I have never met the guy and he is probably more moral than me. I am a hypocrite and I am proud (heck I also have a tiny blog- if that’s not narcissistic then I don’t know what is).

Christianity is about Christ doing all the work. He was the moral one- more moral than any Christian I know. It is because all Christians are immoral that they need help, after all, no one is perfect. It is only by Gods grace that Christians consider themselves saved, not because of some moral action they performed. Jesus came to save both the sinner and the pharisee (the religious guys of his own day).

A Christian moralists does act (or obey God) out of fear, hoping to be accepted by God, where as a Christian acts out of gratitude and desire to please and mimic Jesus. Both may look the same (and attend the same church) but their motivations are quite different, but we may not even be able to tell the difference. Does that even matter, or are morals only external things?

I don’t understand James frustration with Christians if morals are subjective. Is the only basis of our morals our empathy? My empathy wavers a lot and doesn’t really lead me to much action. Last week I didn’t spare a though for the Haiti people but I did think about the Chileans. Neither group I have sent money to. Is that immoral of me to not send money, or is it moral enough that I felt for a Chilean buddy who has family over there (and then not acted)? Am I moral enough to live up to a subjective standard of morality…? I guess it might depend on who’s subjectivity it is (and maybe what day it is as well).

If only we can know for sure…

I like Christianity because I believe the historical record of Jesus is accurate, otherwise I’d be agnostic.

And I don’t want to alarm you, but I think you just converted to agnosticism (the ‘unknowable something else’).

“If that doesn’t send a chill down your spine, I don’t know what would ”

So you admit you like Christianity because the thought of the alternative gives you a chill down your spine? So you are one of the “life preserver” theists, eh?