>>Agreed. However, the assertion Russ makes that this state of affairs
>>(widespread agreement on morals) is consistent with what we would expect if
>>a universal system of morality exists is valid. That's important, because
>>the opposite finding (no agreement on morals) would argue against a
>>universal moral system.
>
Russell wrote
>And that brings us to the second problem. You are forgetting that, for
>most of history, Christians have *not* been able to agree on morality.
Not really (I'm not really forgetting). The fact that a universal moral
system exists doesn't guarantee that everyone -- even those who claim to
accept it -- will practice it consistently.
>Sure, they all believed that murder was wrong, but it was always a question
>of what constituted murder. Is killing a Muslim murder? The Crusaders didn't
>think so. What about a Jew? Or a "witch"? Or a Jew? Or an atheist?
>Christianity
>has shown no more moral cohesion than any other system of morality, and that
>is strongly indicative that there really isn't anything truly objective or
>transcendent about it.
The fact that an individual is -- or claims to be -- a Christian, doesn't
guarantee that he will practice Christian morality 100% of the time. The
consequences vary from unfortunate to tragic -- I'm not trying to make
light of it. But Christianity can be misapplied, as can other
religious/philosophical systems, including yours.
Bill Hamilton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
William E. Hamilton, Jr, Ph.D. | Staff Research Engineer
Chassis and Vehicle Systems | General Motors R&D Center | Warren, MI
William_E._Hamilton@notes.gmr.com
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX) | whamilto@mich.com (home email)