Jan 31, 2020, 7:28 AM
I don’t argue against christian ethics (outcome) – I argue against abrahamism (justification).
I want them to be christians. I just don’t want them to argue with me by claiming that their preference for conveying Christian ethics is a truth or a necessity – It’s neither. it’s a good, and a preference. that’s fine. 😉 But theology isn’t true or even close to it. It’s a false and unwarrantable promise to bait you into following christian ethics.
I just tell them that christianity when stated in scientific terms is in fact the scientific optimum ethics. The way that they argue it and justify it is rather ridiculous for those of us who are fine with the scientific truth being enough of a reason to act according to christian ethics.
If you need different incentives to follow christian ethics that’s just a psychological difference. Otherwise, natural law and Christian ethics are the optimum.
Largely, need for faith is a biological bias to empathy (feminine minds); need for theological argument is a biological bias for (weak) male minds. And the lack of need for faith is a biological basis for analytic (male) minds. And given that regardless of sex we almost all share some distribution of masculine and feminine biases.
So no matter which reason you choose christianity: emotional faith, authoritarian rational, or scientific acknowledgment, all that matters is that people who AREN’T CHRISTIAN always and everywhere have more questionable (worse) ethics that are incompatible with western civilization.