1)
All non-Christians lack morality.
2)
Some non-Christian theists have morality, but such morality is corrupt because
it is predicated on false/idol gods.
3)
Some non-theists have morality, but such morality is based on individual selfishness
and lacking a transcendent purpose/guide.
4)
Some non-theists have morality, but such morality is based on individual
selfishness and generates social corruption.
While
it would take some skilled tact and tempered patience to refrain from pulling
out the logic shotgun and blasting the arguments out of the sky like planet-wide
skeet, we need to focus on the universal assumption underpinning these
arguments, namely…that Christianity (hitherto Christ) is morally sound.
Yet,
it never hurts to review the shots we’d take with such arguments, in case
there’s a test in the future.
So,
logical fallacies applied; 1) hasty generalization/ipse dixit, 2) special
pleading/tu quoque, 3) tu quoque/existential fallacy, 4) tu quoque/cum hoc ergo propter hoc respectively.
Let’s
consider what it means to be moral.
One
dictionary.com definition for morality is:
“Conformity, or degree of conformity, to conventional standards of moral
conduct.”
The
high-level definition seems to lead us into a vague discussion about what
constitutes a proper standard to achieve moral conduct.
Be
not dismayed gentle reader…for, there is an underlying requirement necessary to
develop a proper standard; a proper person.
Now
what may we imagine a proper person to be…that’s an interesting question. We
may spend months trying to construct a proper conception; we may even be
tempted to look for a model reference.
Yet,
it would be charitable to allow a Christian the opportunity to bring forth a
role model that is proper and good, e.g., without sin, et al. since we are
considering whether or not Christianity has a proper person to champion moral conduct
and derivative standards necessary for a sound Christian morality.
I
can think of no better role model than Christ; aye, to be a Christian is to be
a follower of Christ, thus…he is indubitably their champion proper person,
loosely speaking.
Yes…we’ve
got a drawback folks; apparently, Christ can’t be bothered or subpoenaed for
our direct inquiry.
Hark…all
is not lost! We have a witness statement left by the champion Christ himself,
and it is heralded as Authoritative from the Christian God, whose words we cite
from the inerrant Bible.
The
testimony of Jesus reveals; Mark-10:10-18, “And Jesus said unto him, Why
callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God.”
*There
are many biblical examples of Christ’s sinful nature
Now
there is a perplexity if ever I’ve seen one; apparently, Christ and his
followers are not good, per se. If we accept this, then it becomes apparent
that Christ and his followers are declaring their inability to be a ‘proper
person/people’ by which to construct a moral framework, e.g., establish a
Christian morality, et al.
I
imagine we could allow the Christian to argue that the bible’s value isn’t in
its inerrancy, but in its interpretability; but, if we were to grant them that
concession, then it logically flows that if it isn’t inerrant, then its
‘errant’ to ‘some degree’.
Palpably,
we sit and allow ourselves to contemplate the ramifications; if the Bible is
errant to some degree, then it’s possible the very words ascribed to Christ are
errant. If that’s true, then how does one ‘follow’ Christ to become a
Christian?
It
would appear that we are faced with a paradox of sorts…on the Christian’s
behalf.
1)
If they accept Christ’s statement as
inerrant, that Christ isn’t a proper being, e.g., good, sinless, et al., then
he, along with the entire following of Christianity is incapable of producing a
‘proper person’ to champion good ‘moral conduct’.
2) If they charge that Christ’s statement is
‘errant’ even to ‘some degree’, then following Christ by scripture becomes
untenable---consequently, Christianity isn’t about following Christ as a basic
dictionary would suggest. Perhaps, it’s whatever they want to make it.
In
an effort to prevent the annihilation of Christianity as having a well defined meaning,
which is required for us to conceptualize and understand it, let’s forego
option two.
Alas,
for those claiming to be Christian and choosing the second option by their
behavior or lack of understanding, they have no foundation for the concept of Christianity.
Thus,
they perceive Christianity and others claiming to be Christian as make-believe
fictional characters in a play called Christianity. A fictionalized Christian play
lacks the psychological conditions for a ‘proper person’ in-touch with concrete
reality.
Towards
option one; we are left with no ‘proper person’ within Christianity to declare proper
moral conduct or derive moral standards. Ultimately, there exists no Christian
capacity to know what constitutes morality---at all for Christ’s sake!
Now,
we need to be impartial...it’s only fair that we direct that analytic precision
towards our own position. Can any non-Christian elect a ‘proper person’ to
contrive a moral framework?
Well…that’s
an odd question; if they did, how on earth would a Christian discern the truth
of such a claim from their incapable position?
Christian
morality is indeed impossible in any rational sense. A biblical literalist
gains a Christ, who literally recuses himself (and all Christians) as a moral
judge(s). Those who accept that the words ascribed to Christ are errant to some
degree, are those who remove themselves as followers of Christ as you can’t
follow what you don’t know/understand.
While
biblical literalists gain a Christ, and logically claim to follow him as
Christians…they also inherit the literal truth for everything else in the bible,
e.g., dragons, unicorns, satyrs, talking snakes, arrow snakes, supernatural insemination/virgin
birth, zombies, et al., which is a conviction to the Truth of fiction.
The
range of people is short for those claiming to be Christian; you have ignorantly
blissful Christian actors in a contrived fiction, the delusional who adopt the
Truth of a fiction, the simple-minded who can’t tell the difference between the
two, and those who carry a healthy burden of cognitive dissonance.
In
conclusion, Christian morality is impossible, because of their universally
adopted axiomatic truth: “All are sinful” (to include Christ)
Since
no ‘proper person’ exists and we can’t escape our sinful natures according to
Christianity, everything we do and think is perceived through sin and corrupted---even
the words of God Himself were he to provide us a seminar on morality.
The
profound consequence for Christianity being incapable of providing a rational moral
framework is that it is equally incapable of policing itself; it has no moral
grounds to hold its members accountable for their actions; let the sinless cast
the first stone is a call to abandon justice. Hence, judgment and justice are
concerns best left for the afterlife.
If
civil society is to exist; then, it must maintain a faith and hope in humanity’s
capacity to erect a moral framework. We are blessed in the U.S., to have forefathers who took
that position through their use of reason; if the Christian axiom of morality
were to have succeeded in our construction---we’d lack civility (justice system
& police force), e.g., we’d be a rogue nation.
To
incentivize the Christian moral axiom; followers are taught that they are to
receive infinite rewards in the afterlife and that an anti-moral spirituality protects them from physical/social accountability. Christ's words call for an anti-moral spirituality/life if taken literally; to be Christian is to follow Christ anti-morally.
Is the theory supported by reason and evidence? Does the explanatory power of the theory provide a means to predict fundamentalist/literalist Christian behavior?
