And, I might add, the burden of proof rests on those who are trying to
prove that such a standard exists. And they must do it WITHOUT presupposing
that which they are trying to prove.
>This conclusion seems unjustified to me. Let me propose
>an analogy. Most of us recognize that safety belts in cars have saved many
>lives and therefore are good. Russell's and Pim's argument seems to me
>analogous to claiming that because a few motorists have gone berserk and
>used the safety belts in their cars to strngle someone, that safety belts
>are not valuable safety equipment in cars.
It's not at all analogous to that. A seatbelt is something that was designed
to save lives. Any other use for it is not what it was intended for. We know
that, because we know who designed seatbelts and why. The Christian belief
system, OTOH, does not come with such pre-packaged information. Your analogy
assumes beforehand that which you are trying to prove. By comparing Christian
morality to a seatbelt (that sounds like a great one-liner, BTW ;-), you are
assuming that Christianity, like the seatbelt, was designed to do good (as you
define it).
Also, I should add that, even if everything you and Jim say is true, then
Jim's main assertion (that being loyal to God is more logical than being
loyal to one's own empathy) still hasn't been proven.
_____________________________________________________________
| Russell Stewart |
| http://www.rt66.com/diamond/ |
|_____________________________________________________________|
| Albuquerque, New Mexico | diamond@rt66.com |
|_____________________________|_______________________________|
2 + 2 = 5, for very large values of 2.