Just finished: The Sopranos-Season 2
Now watching: The Sopranos-Season 3 
I’ve decided to halt my discussion of evolution and instead discuss something even more foundational than “origin” philosphies. With everything I’ve read and studied lately I think the most important factor that defines what a person believe in lies with Absolutes. I break it down like this:
Christian Absolutes
1. the existence of God/Jesus Christ
2. God’s Word expressed through the Bible
3. God’s Laws/Commands/Moral Codes
These Christian absolutes, as should any absolute, hold firm (for Christians) in any setting at any time or place or universe or whatever. they exist because God is and always will be…independent of anything we as humans comprehend. There is peace in knowing of the promise that something beyond this earthly realm and life exists.
Pagan/Atheistic Absolutes
1. our life on earth followed by Death
2. Science
In trying to understand humanism and the general rejection of Christianity as a whole, these are what I came up with as absolutes for non-Christians. death is finite and absolute. so then with this human existence being all there is, science is the only system that at least attempts to explain life (in what is assumed to be a rational way). Though I personally, as a Christian, debate whether science can be any kind of absolute for a non-Christian for various reasons, I will give science (and pagans) the benefit of the doubt that their absolutes in science exist (for this universe as we know it) whether they have been discovered or not.
Biggest problem/question I have for Non-Christians: what of the consequences of moral relativism? I don’t think society and humans in general would ever function without moral absolutes. if we evolved by chance from animals where did we develop that code? what happens if morality continues to slide further into individually defined ideals? Its happening at an alarming rate both worldwide and in America–and who would argue society is better for it?
Summary: Absolutes are where the real debate lies. Evolution is certainly a tremendous philosophical tool used to try and destroy Christian Absolutes, but it isn’t the root issue. What one holds onto–and everyone has to hold on to something less they be always questioning their existence–defines someone. If all you hold on to is your life here and now and elements of science…is that enough? is that all you want? Its hard for me to fathom just accepting this life on earth. if nothing else it appears totally depressing. fortunately there are answers…
who reads this? by Andy J. Biery 
Are you just lumping the whole of humanity into the groups “christian” and “non-christian”? I think at the very least that is too simplistic a system of classification to be useful for anything.
“what of the consequences of moral relativism?”
Again, are you saying the only choices are “christian” or “moral relativism”? Then you neglect the reality of moral systems that stand just fine outside the framework of christianity.
“I don’t think society and humans in general would ever function without moral absolutes.”
So christianity holds the only absolutes in the universe and thus society and humans don’t function without christianity? Then, as I’ve asked before, what about non-christian countries and cultures that have done and are doing just fine?
“if we evolved by chance from animals where did we develop that code?”
Right around the time we developed intelligence, and then some groups successfully put the strategy or “code” into practice for the mutual benefit of the social group and subsequently outlived other groups who had perhaps found other strategies to survive that were less successful but not necessarily unsuccessful. Later this left us with an unfortunate proclivity for believing in bogey men. Would be my overly simplified answer.
“what happens if morality continues to slide further into individually defined ideals?”
Don’t forget how cyclical basically all natural phenomenon are. If it continues to slide then the pendulum reaches it’s extreme and then swings back the other way. So, if it was to continue I would predict a reversal of the trend.
I agree with you that absolutes are the center of the debate here. Some people only see the world in absolutes and others don’t.
Comment by Patrick — Monday, May 18, 2009 @ 1:50 pm
How are you liking The Sopranos btw? I’m guessing that since you’re already on season three that you like it…? : )
Pretty good show huh?
Comment by Patrick — Monday, May 18, 2009 @ 1:52 pm
sopranos is pretty good. as far as hbo dramas go i’d rank it ahead of deadwood and carnivale but behind 6ft under and the wire. though i haven’t finished it yet so maybe it’ll move up or down.
a lot of these hbo shows are interesting to me cause they delve deeper into subjects in ways u don’t see on regular tv (like discussing the purpose of life, the finality of death, dealing with depression, ect) and its got me interested in a lot of the things i’ve written about the past few months.
Comment by Andy — Monday, May 18, 2009 @ 6:26 pm
“Are you just lumping the whole of humanity into the groups “christian” and “non-christian”? I think at the very least that is too simplistic a system of classification to be useful for anything.”
Christians do see the world this way. Biblically the world is very black and white and representing of two opposing worldviews. The Christian worldview and everything else. It may only be useful for us but it is how it has to be. To blur the lines or not draw the line at that point is not only wrong Biblically for us, but detrimental to the furtherance of the faith as a whole.
“Again, are you saying the only choices are “christian” or “moral relativism”? Then you neglect the reality of moral systems that stand just fine outside the framework of christianity.”
The idea is that there is one set of moral absolutes. That which was handed down from God. So anything deviating from that would be moral relativism. And if some other sect or whatever has changed that absolute into whatever was convenient for them and made it work then i won’t deny its possible for a period that you can do that (especially if you are talking very minor changes). but where then do you draw the line and how do you define “stand just fine”?
“So christianity holds the only absolutes in the universe and thus society and humans don’t function without christianity? Then, as I’ve asked before, what about non-christian countries and cultures that have done and are doing just fine?”
i’d argue those countries took the original Christian moral absolutes and changed them to fit their worldview. again though how do you define “just fine”? i’d interject my opinion on this but it would take us way off course (lets just say America is my standard bearer in this arena due to its foundation on the natural laws of God).
“Right around the time we developed intelligence, and then some groups successfully put the strategy or “code” into practice for the mutual benefit of the social group and subsequently outlived other groups who had perhaps found other strategies to survive that were less successful but not necessarily unsuccessful. Later this left us with an unfortunate proclivity for believing in bogey men. Would be my overly simplified answer.”
I need clarification here, does this answer mean to say this is how moral absolutes were discovered or that there are no moral absolutes its just what man came up with to survive?
“Don’t forget how cyclical basically all natural phenomenon are. If it continues to slide then the pendulum reaches it’s extreme and then swings back the other way. So, if it was to continue I would predict a reversal of the trend.”
that has certainly been what we’ve seen in history to this point so for now I hope that is what happens. Christians do believe though that someday that pendulum won’t swing back thus leading to the “end times”.
Comment by Andy — Monday, May 18, 2009 @ 8:15 pm
1. You left the whole crux of Christianity out of your absolutes, as in “Jesus saves us from our sins.” I guess technically this falls into the “God’s word is true” category, but it probably ought to be declared, nonethless.
2. I don’t think that the end times will be sparked by the moral downfall of society. I think God just picks a time to let it all wind down, regardless of what we happen to be doing at that exact moment. General difficulties of various sorts will then ensue, probably including extreme lack of morality in the general populace.
Comment by Abbie — Wednesday, May 20, 2009 @ 10:57 pm
I guess I have a third comment. Death is definitely an absolute for almost any person, regardless of their spiritual leanings. But I wouldn’t necessarily say that Muslims or Hindus or Native Americans regard “science” as an absolute. That mostly applies to atheists, agnostics, and followers of newer religions/faiths.
Comment by Abbie — Wednesday, May 20, 2009 @ 10:59 pm
I didn’t really mean the moral downfall will cause the end times to start, more that they would coincide. my bad.
death isn’t an absolute for Christians since we have an afterlife to look forward to.
and like i said, i hesitated to include science as an absolute for non-Christians for various reasons, but its certainly being sold as an absolute these days…I’d bet a lot of “religious” people, Christians included unfortunately, would say they believe science has some absolutes.
Comment by Andy — Thursday, May 21, 2009 @ 12:29 am
STILL ignoring abbie’s important point about the crux of christianity. But i’m done with that noise…
Bodily death IS an absolute for christians just like everyone else, regardless of what does or doesn’t happen afterward.
I doubt you will find anyone who practices science or even has a decent understanding of it who would describe it as an absolute. No one. That’s the beauty of science and why it works; it is constantly updating and refining itself as new data and observations and analysis become available. Anything “absolute” is anti-science. I find it interesting you are the only person I’ve ever heard describe it as such.
Comment by Patrick — Saturday, May 23, 2009 @ 4:23 am
Actually, I have been conversing recently online with an atheist that firmly believes evolution is a fact, and that there are many absolutes in science. His world appears to revolve around his belief in science and he believes it explains everything. He claims he has no religion nor god even though he is his own god, and science is his foundation. He talks down to everyone that has a differing viewpoint, and insults their intelligence. IMHO this is typical of someone of this world view. They tell you how you push your religion on people while they are the ones really pushing their religion. They say you must be uneducated or stupid if you don’t believe evolution is a fact.
Comment by Jeff — Monday, May 25, 2009 @ 4:18 pm
I must agree that there unfortunately exists a few people who bastardize science for dubious reasons, and possibly even fewer willingly or unwillingly try to turn it into some sort of “religion” but these people are no longer practicing what everyone else considers real science.
If something is considered an “absolute” then the scientific process has stopped and thus that thing is no longer in the realm of science. Absolutes are the concern of metaphysics, philosophy, faith, whatever, but not science! Science seeks only to explain observed natural phenomenon and that is NOT and can not be a religion! Religion is based solely on faith, science based solely on the observation of natural phenomenon. It’s hard to think of things more completely opposite. And yet they CAN coexist. Neither negates the other, by definition they can’t.
As far as I can tell many people are for whatever reason very poorly educated when it comes to science, and that is not an insult to anyone’s intelligence in my opinion it is just an unfortunate fact.
Comment by Patrick — Tuesday, May 26, 2009 @ 1:03 pm
not ignoring what abbie said since it is included in God’s Word like she said.
yes, bodily death is technically an absolute for all, but i define death in this respect to include the soul so i don’t consider it a total death
i completely accept any and all arguments against science as an absolute. i really didn’t want to put it on there. more wanted to comment on it being the only real truth system a non-Christian can hope to have these days…like the only potential absolute…though it always falls short because its always changing…its kinda a catch 22. it can’t be an absolute, but there are many who think it can be or already is in some respects. i’m kinda drunk as i write this but this is my main point to everything i’m writing. science can’t be relied upon as any sort of truth system no matter how much anyone might want it to be.
Comment by Andy — Sunday, May 24, 2009 @ 1:08 am
science and religion should be able to coexist and not negate each other. problem is that science, in what is supposed to be about observed natural phenomenon, tries to explain things that happened in the very distant past…things that cannot be observed/tested/measured/ect because no one was there “millions” of years ago thus science (specifically biology focused on cosmology) oversteps its bounds into purely philosophical realms. which is pretty much the thesis i’m working from/reading about.
Comment by Andy — Wednesday, May 27, 2009 @ 2:43 am
No, that’s absolutely not the problem at all. What you’re saying is no different than saying why bother prosecuting murders that no one has witnessed because no one can say for sure who did it or what happened. Which is utter BS. You completely ignore the fact that if something has happened it more than likely has left evidence behind. Science has become incredibly good at finding and deciphering evidence of phenomena that unfortunately no one would have been able to personally witness. It makes absolutely no difference whether anyone was around if the evidence remains. That argument (and many many others) was conceived and is propagated by proponents of “creationism” and perniciously takes advantage of, as I have said, the general public’s ignorance as to how science actually functions. The real problem here is the pseudo-scientific creationist propaganda you’ve been exclusively reading.
What is biology focused on cosmology? I’ve never heard of that. Doesn’t sound like science to me!
Comment by Patrick — Wednesday, May 27, 2009 @ 2:15 pm
sure if something happened in the past it leaves evidence. but like in history or archeology we verify it through written documents. anything else is pure supposition based on personal worldview.
creationism isn’t science. though science certainly can’t disprove God creating the universe. life spawning from non-life through pure chance isn’t science either. both take tremendous leaps of faith to believe in. Though the Bible does say creationism isn’t a big leap at all….
Romans 1:20-21 (Amplified version)
20For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made (His handiworks). So [men] are without excuse [altogether without any defense or justification],
21Because when they knew and recognized Him as God, they did not honor and glorify Him as God or give Him thanks. But instead they became futile and godless in their thinking [with vain imaginings, foolish reasoning, and stupid speculations] and their senseless minds were darkened.
i realize we won’t agree on this, but i do enjoy the discussion.
P.S.
biology-1.the science of life or living matter in all its forms and phenomena, esp. with reference to origin, growth, reproduction, structure, and behavior. (random house dictionary)
cosmology-1.The scientific study of the origin, evolution, and structure of the universe. (American Heritage scientific dictionary)
theres lots of definitions for both words but i’m not out of line putting either of them together. cosmology is probably more of a combination of biology and astronomy (and philosophy imo).
Comment by Andy — Thursday, May 28, 2009 @ 4:02 pm
That’s the second time you’ve agreed and then not agreed “Yes, but…” and proceeded to make basically the same argument. For the third time: Science is not philosophy. It is not conjecture or supposition. It is not wild guesses with no basis in reality. Those things have no place in science. Again for like the fourth time: practical science, by definition, does not require and has no use for faith. You repeatedly profess to agree with this, yet continue the mantra with statements like “take (a) tremendous leap of faith”. Besides being a thinly veiled straw man argument, this automatically creates a false binary choice for people of faith; either you have “faith” in god or you have “faith” in science, which insidiously discourages further individual investigation or thought.
In response to your specific charge: First the way you choose to state it makes it sounds like life as we know it is an on/off switch or something, which makes it easier to believe your statement. The truth is much more complex than that. Second, it is FAR from a “tremendous leap of faith” as you put it to conclude that life on earth formed on its own. No, it’s currently not the most airtight case that science has, but it doesn’t matter much as divine intervention is definitely not the ONLY alternative to what we think happened. There is plenty of primary source information (the entirety or which is conveniently ignored by your foregone “tremendous leap of faith” conclusion) readily available thanks to the wonders of the internet demonstrating that it is indeed possible for life as we know it to form on its own given the right conditions which have existed on earth in the past. As time goes on and research and experiments improve, it is more and more likely that we will be able to observe the beginnings of “life” or actual spontaneous synthesization of it or something like that in a lab. IMO in the distant future we will observe this happening somewhere other than on earth entirely on its own as it is a natural process that occurs when the conditions are correct. Although that is assuming we last that long which I admit is highly dubious.
In the end I guess my points are:
-It’s not my position to judge something so esoteric as studying or believing in the bible, and I’m quite sure I would be terrible at judging it anyway. My motivations for replying to your posts have nothing to do with discouraging you from believing what you want in that realm.
-You can close your eyes ears and mind and ignore science or believe all you want that it is a useless and/or evil endeavor, or whatever you choose to believe about it, I really could care less. However, in every instance I will be quick to point out my strong belief that perpetuating myths, junk science, and misinformation in pursuit of a religious agenda is at the very least a BIG waste of time and on the other end of the spectrum just plain sinister.
Comment by Patrick — Sunday, May 31, 2009 @ 9:38 am
And that’s not even mentioning the fact that, for instance, the Hubble telescope literally does see things that happened “in the very distant past”, as far back as billions of years ago since the electromagnetic radiation has traversed across the universe that long to only just now reach us. Or CMB radiation. Two great examples.
Comment by Patrick — Wednesday, May 27, 2009 @ 2:29 pm
i’m not going to go into much further argument or detail in the comment section (especially when it comes to arguing the faith aspect of the probability of life spawning from non-life).
quickly though, no not all science is philosophy or an “evil endeavor”, just its attempts to explain the origins of life (and i dont think this is consciously an evil endeavor either). I personally trust scientific areas like physics, chemistry, and parts of astronomy, biology, and geology that deal with observed, testable, and verifiable information that aren’t subject to personal worldview and are completely immutable (like the “laws” of science for example). i’m definitely all for evolutionary atheists and even ID people to give it their best shot. Just think the origin of life will never be proven in the scientific realm.
it is kinda funny that almost all explanations (in science) for what we see today conclude with “its certainly possible given enough time”. sure the magic bullet theory is certainly possible given the right circumstances too. Isn’t it also possible God just created it all?
i guess what i’ll conclude with here is science can give me a call when they think they’ve got it finally figured out once and for all…I won’t be waiting by the phone (and neither will my 5th generation grandson either). For now i’ll stick to something that will never change…everyone else can keep reaching for that rainbow! Everybody dance now!
Comment by Andy — Monday, June 1, 2009 @ 3:47 pm
“There is plenty of primary source information…readily available thanks to the wonders of the internet demonstrating that it is indeed possible for life as we know it to form on its own given the right conditions which have existed on earth in the past.”
Really? I’ve never seen anything that came close to proving the possibility of spontaneous generation under any circumstances. What websites are you cruising?
Comment by Abbie — Tuesday, June 16, 2009 @ 1:20 am
[…] when moral absolutes errode into relativism, well, I’ve written plenty about that here and here (basically that removing moral absolutes includes a general rejection of God and […]
Pingback by The problem: Kids from the 60s running the country. The solution: Wait 10 more years. « who reads this? by Andy J. Biery — Wednesday, May 26, 2010 @ 11:46 am