The Nature of Morality: A Discussion

There are big differences between Catholicism and Protestantism. They have the same center, but it definitely is a large jump to convert between them. The reason the Protestant 84% is so high is because there are at least 200 different Protestant denominations in the United States. Some are similar, but many are very different. Anyone rejecting the beliefs of their parents and switching to a new Protestant denomination is not counted in this data. Yes, one of the keys of being rational is indeed constant vigilance with regards to our own biases. Once, I believed a semi-Protestant theology because I wanted it to be true, was not very knowledgeable, and didn't look too deeply into the issue. But one day I realized, as I learned more, that I had to rationally seek the truth, and choose the one belief system that I believed to be the true one. So I researched, and Catholicism always had an answer for any charge anyone tried to lay against it. I have been blessed to have never really do...

I found what I'm guessing is the Pew study you referenced. It says 62% of Americans who were raised by two Catholic parents remain Catholic, but another 17% stay within the Christian faith, so that's about 80% that more or less believe what they were told as children. And that's just those raised by two Catholics. For those raised by two Protestants, the number is even higher, with 84% remaining Christian. And, of course, this is in the US, which is a relatively open and pluralistic society. I'm fairly certain if you looked at countries where, for example, Islam is the dominant religion, the number would be even closer to 100%. And the majority of those people are just as convinced as you are that their beliefs are the correct ones. None of this necessarily means you are wrong, but it's important to be aware of our biases, as they often lead to motivated reasoning. And I'm not trying to insult you by accusing you of bias. We all have biases--it's part of th...

All the first Jews and the first Christians decidedly did not believe what they were told as children, and the first Christians were willing to die for their new beliefs. Yes, most people today (according to Pew Research about 60%) believe what they were told as children. But that is only a slight majority. I was indeed very blessed to be raised in the Catholic faith. But it is not such a "curious concidence" - nearly 17% of the world is Catholic. I had something like a 1 in 6 chance to be raised in the Catholic faith. (And something like a 1 in 3 chance to be raised as a Christian.) It doesn't matter what scientific knowledge I don't have now, because, as I said, none of my arguments depend on any current level of scientific knowledge. Can you give an example of any possible scientific discovery which could invalidate my reasoning? If scientists discovered with 100% certainty that the universe was created out of nothing by some sort of eternal inanimate object which ...

I'm sure the precise reasons for their faith vary from Christian to Christian, but by and large, I imagine they are like most other people and believe what they were told as children, and then enlist ex post facto arguments to justify that belief. I'm not saying that's what you are doing, since certainly there are exceptions. That said, do you find it a curious coincidence that the exact faith you were raised in just happens to be the correct one? Quite a stroke of good fortune for you, no?  The thing about scientific knowledge is that you don't know what you are missing from your current vantage point. I'm sure there were once people who couldn't imagine any advance in knowledge that could explain an eclipse, so it must be God. Almost everything we know about cosmology, we've learned in the last hundred years. And as I have mentioned a couple of times now, cosmologists currently have models and equations that suggest laws which exist outside of space and t...

God was once posited as the cause of many naturalistic phenomena, true. But people didn't believe in God because "what else could cause earthquakes?" They believed in God because they witnessed miracles - events that were clearly not naturalistic, by the standards of any time - or believed people who witnessed miracles and were ready to die rather than deny the truth of their beliefs. The "god of the gaps" accusation is in most cases a straw man. I don't know of any Christians who believe in God because of a "god of the gaps" argument. If any do, I'm sure they are few and far between. The first cause argument is definitely not a "god of the gaps" argument. It depends not on the current state of scientific knowledge, but on reasoning which was as true 1000 years ago as it is now, and will be 1000 years in the future. Can you find any point in my argument that depends on a current lack of scientific knowledge? My apologies, I did not kn...

The historical pattern I observe is the one to which you alluded. God was once posited as the cause of eclipses, earthquakes, the movement of the stars, origin of humanity, etc. And each time it has turned out there is a sufficient naturalistic explanation. So forgive me if I'm skeptical when someone says, "No, but this time , God really is the cause!" For the record, there are several professional philosophers who have written critically about the first cause argument, including Michael Martin, John Mackie, Quentin Smith, Bebe Rundle, Wes Morriston, and Graham Oppy. So I don't think it's been lacking "due attention".  You implied that even if the first cause argument didn't hold up, you wouldn't lower your confidence in God's existence at all . If this is true, I can only conclude that the first cause is irrelevant to your belief in God, and is not one of the actual reasons for that belief. In which case, why should it be convincing to me? ...

Few people are raised atheists, but I get the impression that many convert to atheism when they are teenagers or young adults (before they begin their careers), which could lead them to choose philosophy as their career, accounting for their overrepresentation as philosophers. Is philosophy really that informed by science? Science is the study of the physical world. Philosophy is the study of the nature of existence. Because one person does two jobs does not mean they are related.  You said, "The historical pattern we observe is one of various mysteries being attributed to God, and then science providing a naturalistic explanation for a given mystery, and so God retreats to more distant mysteries. By our present day, God has retreated so far that he is beyond the bounds of the universe, where he is safe from examination by science." I'm unsure where you see this historical pattern. Perhaps in pagan religions, but certainly not in Christianity. You think too little of the ...