> 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 :)
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.