I got though the discussion of Douglas Wilson and Christopher Hitchens you had mentioned. I found it refreshing to actually read an open attack on Atheism from Douglas Wilson. Most of the time, I feel we Atheists (me and CH) are just laying siege to a fortress without any “counter attack”. This is also appropriate as we were just talking about Nietzsche and nihilism. I think I can characterize this part of his point as:

1) Without a supernatural basis (or “warrant”) for morality, there is no way to distinguish between good and evil.
2) An atheist can be good, but his morality has no basis. “Given atheism, objective morality follows … how?”

DW: “You keep saying, “I have come to my ethical position.” I keep asking, “Yes, quite. But why did you do so?”"

There are several different ways to answer the question. We can examine how morality first arose perhaps what basis it originally had. We can also discuss what (atheistic) basis morality should have.

History of Morality (Abridged)

As I mentioned in a previous thread, behavior which we consider good and evil is also seen in the animal kingdom. Most Mammal species care for their young. Humans care for their young. You can argue that nether has “basis” but the fact is animals know good and evil. Basis is irrelevant.

DW: “Given atheism, objective morality follows … how?” DW is assuming objective morality exists. Why and how?

Social Morality: The De Facto Basis

Now we are not totally programmed in behavior by our genes (like a spider knows how to spin a web, birds migrating in the right direction). We also have society. The basis for human morality is agreement. Cannibals agree cannibalism is good. We (as in you and me) agree that cannibalism is wrong. That is the current basis for morality – nothing fancy.

Think about the basis for the law… agreement. It is the same general mechanism but it is agreed upon by a smaller group of the population (politicians).

If fact this is not far of Wittgenstein territory – we just agree what good and evil are in our particular “form of life”.

Transvaluation of All Values

Ok that title probably betrayed which philosopher my main points are coming from. Anyway…

If we reject social agreement as a basis for morality, there is one final authority who can create a system of good and evil – the individual. Or as some philosopher would put it: the superman. We of course sacrifice the luxury of agreeing with everyone else but that isn’t technically a requirement.

Quibbles with DW

“In our thought experiment, the one rule is that you must say something to [a vile atheist], and whatever you say, it must flow directly from your shared atheism—and it must challenge the morality of his choices.” James 4:11 “He that … judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law.” So can DW also not judge?

Q:”Your entire worldview has evolution as a key foundation stone, and evolution means nothing if not change.”… “And when we change, as we must, all our innate morality changes with us, right?” A: Yes. And therefore any basis for morality that does not reflect our current situation is flawed – for example holy scripture unless it is reinterpreted to fit the times. But after subjective interpretation, how is it in an way authoritative?

Q: “We have distant cousins where the mothers ate their young. Was that innate for them? Did they evolve out of it because it was evil for them to be doing that?” A: Yes. It’s impossible for offspring to again procreate if they are dead.

[Regarding proof of "Jesus Christ is good for the world because he came as the life of the world"] “…here is some evidence for you, in no particular order. The engineering that went into ankles.”… Bzzzzzz. Incorrect – but thanks for playing! (ok joking aside now:) Ankles were around before humans and Jesus, are explained by natural causes and have nothing to do with his point. His whole argument is non sequitur.

“So for you to refuse to accept Christ because it is absurd is like a man at one end of the pool refusing to move to the other end because he might get wet.” This is an excellent example of tu quoque logical fallacy.

Anti Citizen One