About
Hi, my name is Lewis, and I’ve been blogging here as Cogitating Duck since 2010. I typically write on religion, politics, and philosophy, with careful attention to worldview. Currently I’m pursuing an M.A. in Christian Apologetics at Biola University.
I hope you’ll join me in discussing with clarity and charity the issues that matter. While once you knew the old truth that “Cogito ergo sum,” now you will find yourself confessing, “Cogito, ergo duck.”
Cogitating Duck 
I just discovered this excellent site. I thought I knew all of the interesting conservative outposts on the web, but this is a hidden gem. These “blog posts” are actually essays that should get much wider attention, somewhere like NRO or American Thinker. Why are they hidden away as blogs? (Could it be the author’s precarious location deep behind enemy lines, not only in California, but an academic in California?)
Thanks for your feedback. I’m a working stiff, a cog in the academic wheel. No advanced degree, but maybe some advanced thoughts. Those are certainly some fine outlets you mentioned. Maybe one day I’ll get there!
Hey Duck, I think we have a lot in common – The Goose.
Hi Cogitatingduck. Saw your post over on a reasonable faith blog. Alas I wrote her a answer to her post and she is evidently too afraid to let it appear in comments. You can find what I said here on my own blog: http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/2013/01/04/not-so-polite-dinner-conversation-dear-theist-you-need-to-up-your-game/ You are encouraged to post your attempts to rebut my points there.
However… Cog, a work of clay can judge its maker if it’s better than its maker. Since you cannot show evidence of your god at all, how can you call the morals you claim to get from it “objective”? I could also say “without Tezcatlipoca, there can be no basis.” for these morals. There are indeed objective standards for morals, in that they are those that allow civilization to move along smoothly e.g. the ideas of property and laws about the handling of it, the ideas of individual freedom, etc.
And Cog, please don’t be so silly and assume that atheists somehow worship Richard Dawkins. That just makes us laugh at Christians who are so ignorant of what atheists do indeed find important. Making such ridiculous claims about atheists is awfully close to bearing false witness and we know what your god says about that.
Hi Clubschadenfreude, thanks for dropping by. It seems we both believe that objective morals exist. Consider what this means: individuals have duties and obligations that transcend all times and places. Laws and customs about personal liberty and property rights, as you’ve mentioned do exist, but are only “subject” to limited enforcement. If for some moral duty a person can evade the long arm of accountability, then the moral duty is properly characterized as subjective.
But as you’ve surmised, there are indeed objective moral duties and obligations to which we feel and indeed are accountable. Objective morality requires a transcendant ground, and God is the best possible explanation. If there is no transcendant ground, intellectual honesty requires us to abandon the idea of objective morality.
Many thanks for replying, Duck, and posting my comment. Yes, one could say that laws are subject to limited enforcement. However, I’m guessing you think that your god enforces laws with no limit. That would be a good response *if* you could show that this was the case and that your god existed *and* did something. There is no evidence for this or any other god being a law enforcer. Thus, your claims of objectivity coming from god fail. However, if you think there is evidence, I invite you to show it to me. For that is what is required, evidence of your supernatural being that is the one and only objective law maker. I need to see that you can show me that the Christian god exists and is the only one responsible. Can you do that? You seem to have ignored my point that most, if not all religions, make the same claims, that their god/gods created the laws of mankind. This makes your claim simply one among many. Do you understand the weakness of your position?
Subjectivity is based on opinion, objectivity is based on facts. If a law is uniformly found by humanity to be advantageous and can be demonstrated as such by facts, then one can call it objective, not beholden to personal beliefs that are not supported by facts. It does not require anything to be “transcendent” by which means “beyond the limits of ordinary experience” but I suspect you mean more accurately “supernatural”.
But, say that laws and morals are indeed subjective. I believe most are, with only a good handful that are universally held. The religions of the world have changed their minds about what their god/gods have “really meant”. Modern Christians of today cannot agree on what morals their god approves of, and they certainly do not always reflect the morals and beliefs of those in the past. If there were any objective laws from your god, then why did we have Christians on both sides of the slavery debate? Which side was on your god’s side? Why do we still have Christians who cannot agree about women’s issues, homosexuality, etc? For all of the claims of objective truth from Christianity, there is extremely little evident. I have practiced and I see only a religion that is formed by its very human practitioners, that changes as society changes, rarely the other way around. I suspect you will invoke “free will” and claim that those Christians who disagree with you are not Christians at all and that your god is allowing them to make the mistakes they make. Again, this requires you to show me that your version is the only true version, and that your god exists at all. I look forward to your reply.
Pingback: No objective morality without God « Cogitating Duck
Pingback: Gun Owners Not Progressives, Refuse to Be Cowed By Psychological Campaign | The Southern Voice