Ruffians Intoxicated With Power, Or Debunking the Myth That Unions "Used" To be Good

The goal of this essay is to directly rebut the often repeated myth that "There was a time when we needed unions." or "Unions used to be good but now they are out of control." I have heard these phrases tossed about by countless people in light of the recent turmoil in Wisconsin, and it is my goal to debunk that myth.

Preuppositions

I am a Bible believing Christian, as if there is another kind of Christian, my first and foremost philosophic loyalty is to the principles presented to us in the Word of God. When approaching any subject we approach it with these lenses on, and analyze it as faithfully as we can in light of this worldview. Some simple Biblical principals for us to apply would be moral commands like "You shall not steal." or "You shall not bear false witness" or "You shall not murder." (Deut 5) If we really meditate upon these we see that their application is broader than we may think at first glance.

For instance the application of the command to not steal, is expanded by the apostle Paul to a positive of working with ones hands (Eph 4). Seeing the positive as being included in the negative "You shall not..." allows us to see further what is commanded of us. The opposite of not stealing then is to work hard and acquire your own property honestly that you may be charitable to others and respect the property rights of others. Likewise, the negative prohibition of murder would also include the positive command to respect and value life.

When we take this lens and look at politics or in the essay to come, labor unions, the main thing it seems to me to bear in mind is to call evil evil, and good good. Forget who or what we have been told are the "good" guys, we rather need to let the Bible inform us as to who are the good guys and the bad guys. Government and the state aligned media strike me as very adept at alchemizing rottenness and calling it a virtue. This is abundantly true when we look at the history and effect of labor unions. Ever since the kettle began to boil over in Madison WI, I have heard time and time again from people who actually support the Governor in his fight with the unions, that unions used to be good, we needed them at one time.

In the past labor unions truly were freedom fighters, but now they just are out of control. That is the common view of unions, and I find it very interesting how many times I have heard that same line, it tells me there is a state indoctrinated myth needing to be smashed.

But Before We Start:

So, what is a labor union? In short it is a collective, somewhat like a Borg ship on Star Trek though less attractive, as the Borg never pretended to be saving humanity from some great evil. In the words they would use today workers are united in "solidarity" making themselves able to stand as one man. The "solidarity" language sounds less commie than "collective" and thus is preferred, but a skunk called by any other name...

The Labor Union Myth

The simple narrative surrounding labor unions goes something like this, there are these greedy capitalist bosses who through sheer luck of the draw have acquired enough wealth to run a business making widgets that requires laborers. Being the greedy scumbag that he is, the bottom line for the capitalist is profit, and this is of course anathema to our more "socially" minded friends. Thus, the owner will treat workers like garbage, pay them as little as possible, make them work 23 hour shifts and fire them when they pass our from exhaustion. Humanity will be forced to endure this torment unless someone can save us.

Enter our valiant hero the labor union to save humanity from this misery, workers band together and essentially are 1 giant worker, big enough to stand up to the capitalist pig and make him treat the workers right (see illustration to the left). The workers being one solid unit walk out of the widget factory and go on strike holding signs declaring what a bad man the capitalist is.

The capitalist may send out thugs to beat up the peaceful strikers for refusing to work in his factory. The union strikers take the beatings like Gandhi, and refuse to go back to work until they get a raise. The capitalist stunned and befuddled feels ashamed and repents giving the workers a hefty raise, a 40 hour 5 day work week, 10 weeks vacation a year, a 401k plan, healthcare, and paternity leave.

It is also because of unions and their effulgent love for humanity that children no longer are forced to work in the widget mines, workers have air conditioning, and a general spirit of love and unity abounds everywhere the benevolent hand of the labor union has been fortunate enough to touch. This overflow of bliss can be most richly observed in the model cities of Detroit and Gary Indiana, where unionism has had some of its most profound impacts. Stand in awe you scoffers, you who doubt the greatness of the labor union have Detroit to rebuke you!

Labor Union Reality

Alright lets get real here, so how does this labor union thing really work? Specifically, lets start with the "weapon" of unions, the strike, how does a strike really work?

How a Strike Really Works

The only way a strike will succeed is if the union strikers get violent, they prevent "scabs" (People willing to work) from going to work in the capitalists factory, they destroy property, and violate property rights (through blocking entry to the property). Or, Biblically, they need to break the 6th and 8th commandments for a strike to have any hope of working. But, not only do the union strikers need to do all of those things to succeed, they also need one more vital ingredient for success: they need to have the government support them in these dastardly acts.

I mean just think about it for a minute, if you were a factory owner and a bunch of your workers all of a sudden decided they were not going to go back to work until you gave them a raise and dental coverage, meanwhile there are plenty of people who would love to work at the rate the unionized guys are now refusing, what would you do? Well, you'd just fire the ingrates and hire people who are happy to work on the terms the previous employees refused to work at.

Thus, if the strike is going to succeed the union strikers need to prevent you from getting new workers in the factory, which is why the strikers surround the factory. Anyone trying to get in to work in the factory is beaten up by the union strikers and given derogatory names like "scab".

In sensible response to this thuggery, factory owners in the 1800's hired private security firms like the Pinkertons or "strike busters" so they could get workers into their factory and product in and out of the factory, thus keeping the factory running. Also, before the government sided with the unions, police and militia were used to stop union violence and protect private property.

A classical historical example of the supposed good early unions is the "Homestead Strike". In this instance hired Pinkertons were trying to sneak into the private property of Andrew Carnegie which had essentially been seiged by maniacal strikers. The Pinkertons crossed an abutting river at 4 AM, and, upon being noticed by the drooling thug strikers, were greeted with a flurry of gunshots from the same. After the ensuing firefight a number of people were wounded and killed in the union induced violence.

The Pinkertons, not having the element of surprise on their side and being outgunned and outnumbered, were forced to surrender. After being granted "safe passage" out of the strike zone the Pinkertons were forced to walk through a tunnel of strikers receiving peltings of rotten fruit, urine, and club blows upon their exit, many were beaten unconscious.

Eventually, martial law was declared the state militia was called up (now the federalized national guard) and the union degenerates were thankfully thwarted.

It is difficult to imagine what sort of twisted worldview would view the strikers in the Homestead strike as the persecuted party fighting for liberty. Yet, as I said before, I don't know how many times I have heard the refrain that although unions seem pretty crummy now they used to be good. That's the big lie that nearly everyone believes, in reality unions always were thugs, Unionism after all is based off of commie philosophy which has as it's backbone Lenin's maxim:

"The scientific concept, dictatorship, means neither more nor less than unlimited power resting directly on force, not limited by anything, not restrained by any laws or any absolute rules. Nothing else but that." (Vladamir Lenin)

Another charming example of these early union strikers is the "Pullman strikes", in this case the boobery was whipped up into a union striking frenzy by Communist agitator Eugene Debs. The strike began in response to a recession induced wage cut for Pullman Palace Car Company railway workers. Unions then, like unions today, simply could not understand an economic situation where it would be justified to see their wages lowered in exchange for remaining employed.

The union strikers immediately became wild and violent, attacking numerous railroad owned properties and persons not associated with the union. In the wake of their marauding savagery 7 buildings were burned down, numerous people ("scabs") were violently assaulted, 13 killed, and in today's dollars roughly $9 million worth of damage was done by these rascals. In the end the rampaging brutes were only quelled by a force 12,000 strong US troops.

The Only Way Unions Can Succeed

Given the above examples, how in the world can a union succeed in getting what it wants? The answer is simple: government intervention.

As has been shown in two famous strikes above that unions tend to have a propensity towards violent outbursts, it would seem to me that any rational person would recoil in horror at these episodes cited above. Well, rationality seems to be short in supply.

I know it might be difficult to believe, but in the mind of the public the strikers with all of their violence, and encroachments on private property, came to be viewed as heroes and martyrs. I ask myself how in the world these ruffians could be viewed in this light, but, then I remember this is the same public that built a Greek temple in devout honour to Abraham Lincoln, housing his marbled likeness on a great white throne of judgment. The same Lincoln who waged a war causing over a million deaths in order to, "free the slaves" as the accepted myth goes.
In short, people tend to like who they are told to by the media.

The Event That Shifted Government Actions Toward Union Violence

So, suffice it to say that the public, already viewing the rogues in unions as heroes, became all the more sympathetic and outraged when renegade strikers in Ludlow CO got a teaspoon of what the Native Americans received in 50 gallon buckets at the hands of the US government. In this instance dubbed by the media the "Ludlow Massacre" a number of striker's wives and children died in a shoot out with US troops. As a result, there was no end to the rage of the public. It was that event that caused the government to cease protecting persons and property of employers and rather jump in and begin its regulation of labor, using the unions as their excuse to expand the size of government.

In light of the Ludlow strike I have to ask why strikers who are in a southern standoff with State Troops would have women and children present on what for all intensive purposes is a battlefield? That seems pretty idiotic, I know if I was in a gunfight my first thought would be how to make sure my wife and kids are safe, so why would they have their weaker vessels in harms way? Nonetheless, it is a tragedy that women and children died, but that in no way justifies the striking union's thuggish manner in which they attempted to advance their cause.

(Left and above, strikers scream at "scabs" going to work on terms the strikers refuse)

From then on the government generally would turn a blind eye to union violence and cease to perform its primary function of protecting persons and property. This can be seen in strikes after this event where union thugs were allowed to beat up scabs, take over private property, and have reigns of terror with immunity while police turned a blind eye, perhaps more so recently because police are all unionized as well.

How Government Acts as a Club on Behalf of Unions

Labor unions generally have a thoroughly unearned reputation of fighting for the little guy, making sure workers are treated fairly. Nothing can be further from the truth. Unions through teaming up with government actually restrict entry into fields of labor, thus giving union members a pay raise through keeping other workers out of said field of work.

Restriction of entry is done through requiring licenses to do certain work, like plumbing, electrical, and carpentry. These trades are all able to be learned on the job in an apprenticeship type of setting. But, rather than allowing that to occur, the unions restrict entry through the use of government requiring an obscene amount of schooling in order to obtain a license to do legally work in these trades. This is why plumbers and electricians can make $30-$100 an hour. The wages for these trades are kept artificially high by restricting entry into the fields.

For instance, if you want to be an electrician you don't buddy up with an electrician and learn the trade until you feel you can do the work on your own, that would make sense wouldn't it? Rather, you go to the government/union approved trade schools and put in the 4-6 years and get a government issued license allowing you to work. This is all justified sanctimoniously by the tired, "It's for the public's safety" line incessantly used by government to reassure the boobus that what looks like a scam and smells like a scam really is blessing.

This same union fascist use of government gimmick applies to innumerable other trades such as Barbary and Hairstyling, Machine Operating, Real Estate, Law, and Taxi cabbing to name a few. If we think about it honestly we will sensibly ask, do you really need to go to school and get a license to cut hair? Or to sell houses? Or to drive a taxi cab?

In all of these examples the unions are not teamed up to fight some wicked capitalist, but rather to club their fellow man and keep out entry into these fields through government regulation, thus artificially driving up their wages. Grasping this one point entirely shifted my perspective on unions: labor unions are not in competition with the boss, they are in all actuality in competition with other workers, particularly the non-union workers. That being the case, wouldn't it be easier to have the government beat up the "scabs" for you?

You can actually read of instances of police stings being done on plumbers, electricians, and cab drivers for operating without a license. Or, to put it more accurately, these were union beat downs of "scabs", that is after all the exact equivalent of what it is to be an unlicensed plumber.

In the disgusting article (linked to above) written by a flaming authoritarian neo-con on the plumbers he actually refers to the customers who choose to hire the unlicensed contractors as "victims". Furthermore, in the same article, you can see the licensed union contractors in full support of the crackdown, gee I wonder why? Could it have anything to do with knocking out their competition? The same is the case with the news article on the cab business operating without the government issued licenses.

Conclusion

I began this post with a reference to the law of God, in the end that is to be our guide, not whether we personally benefit from a union arrangement or have family that does. We have seen that unions and their weapon of striking can only succeed to the use of violence and violating of property rights. Biblically, we know without a doubt that this is directly in opposition to the 6th and 8th commandments, and thus is thoroughly reprehensible. Unionism, Biblically speaking, is immoral if these are the means it uses to achieve it's end.

Forming a union itself is not sinful, nor is striking to try to get a raise, the problem is that these means would never succeed without violence. And, even then violence is not enough, we need greater violence (The government) to support the unions through law for them to succeed. On that note we need to remember that having the government act as one's thug is no more moral than acting as a thug one's self.

I plan to address the needed political reforming of education as well as the impact of public employee unions and the Wisconsin mess in particular in upcoming posts. In this post I wanted mainly to smash the "There was a time when we needed unions" myth.

On a closing note the next time we hear the rubbish about how unions gave us the weekend please join me in a hearty belly laugh, as last I checked the weekend was God's idea (see the 4th commandment) and let us not ascribe to Commie thugs what was really the gift of God.

Relativistic Sentimentalism on Overdrive: Or Popular Thoughts on Gay Marriage

"Who are you to say?" Seems to be the highest expression of Orthodoxy in our day, yet in that one simple challenge to moral authority the destruction of our entire society is contained. No, I don't see homosexuality itself as the thing that will destroy our society, it is just another symptom of the lemming like march of the West off the cliff of relativism.

Recently, in the town I reside in Rhode Island the debate over same sex marriage has been sparked as the new Governor Lincoln Chaffee (the first name should tell the reader all we need to know) has vowed to legalize same sex marriage. This was answered in our town by a gentleman speaking against this matter in a public forum at a Catholic church. Given the reaction by individuals writing to the editor one might have thought that a young George Wallace descended upon the town crying, "Segregation now! And, segregation forever!"

The statements made by local common folk is what I believe spells the death march of our society, apart from God's Spirit being poured out in a massive revival. The editorial letters were entirely devoid of any moral pronouncement that could be considered objective. In essence the entire problem the people had with the forum against same sex marriage was, "I don't like it, I have a gay friend/brother/or I myself am gay." Vapid slogans continue to dominate our intellectual landscape, one of which that is invoked ad nauseum is as follows:

"Why can't two people who love each other get married?"

To which, if we act like adults and pause to think, we will find that there may in fact be any number of reasons why it may not be possible for "two people who 'love' each other" to get married, such as: They may be brother and sister, father and daughter, mother and son, they are cousins, one of them may already be married, both of them may already be married, one of the parties may be under age, both of the parties may be under age, and lastly, they may be of the same gender. Our autonomous society wants to place an asterisk next to that last one, but if it does that, why not place an asterisk next to them all?

We hear people scoff when the sensible question is brought up that if homosexual marriage is permitted then why not polygamy, bestial marriage, or man boy marriage? People get angry and roll their eyes at these suggestions, I think because they were never taught logic. If sexual ethics are up in the air to be determined, not by God in His word, but rather the lobby groups in Washington or Providence in the case of RI, then why stop at same sex marriage?

After all, what do you mean you don't think a man can have 7 wives? What are you some sort of polygaphobe? What do you mean a man can't marry his Pit Bull? That is a bigoted narrow minded thing to say, after all, who are you to say? Honestly, why not? Stay out of a man's bedroom! The supporters of same sex marriage can never really answer why these latter perversions would remain impermissible once their perversion becomes acceptable. What are the boundaries, what is the standard that forbids such arrangements as man beast, or man and boy?

In fact, the lobby groups for these perversions already exist.

The issue isn't a what goes where mechanics confusion in sexual practice, rather it strikes at the very root of what ethics are based upon. Is God our lawgiver? If so we have objective truth in the area of ethics. Or, is man autonomous? If so all moral statements are subjective and are really on the same level as which of the 31 Baskin Robbins flavors is your favorite.

Such is the muddled state of thinking in our day, as Dostoevsky famously stated, "Without God all things are permitted."

That really needs to sink in to people. If we are just making up the boundaries of morality and decency as we go, and there is no fixed standard or word from God, then we have no basis to really object to anything. The implications of that are obviously much larger than off color bedroom practices. In short, the supporters of same sex marriage are getting more than they bargain for.

A Standard Dialogue With an Atheist on Ethics:

What follows is a dialogue I have had with an Atheist on the subject of ethics. You the reader are seeing what appears to be the dusk of the dialogue (This is generally where the Ad hominem insults start to fly). I would post the whole thing but this is long enough as it is. To bring the reader up to speed, the general argument has gone:

1) I asked for a foundation for ethics based upon Atheist Materialism

RE: "Do unto others"

2) Why based upon Atheist materialism should I practice a do unto others ethic?

RE: "Because that is the way you would like to be treated."

3) That simply begs the question.

RE: I hate God.

This is the structure the dialogue goes nearly every time I talk about ethics with Atheists. You will see a nearly identical dialogue to the one I am posting here between me and an Atheist "Jody" in the comment thread of my prior post "Fundamentalist Atheism". What I generally do is bring up something that anybody who is not a full blown Nihilist will find morally wrong and press them as to WHY based upon their worldview. In the following dialogue I have brought up a hypothetical where the Atheist needs to explain why molesting children is wrong. The sad thing is they never can do so. And in attempting to do so they are borrowing from Christianity, and divorcing the ethics from their base which gave them meaning.

Anyway here's the dialogue, I have changed the names a bit:

Mat (short for Materialist):

You again are just begging the question as you say:

[In referring to the supernatural events recorded in the Bible "never happening" because there is no evidence that supernatural things happen]

"No, it’s because there is no evidence for these things having actually happened."

The point is that you reject the Bible's testimony that these supernatural events happened because you say there is no evidence that supernatural events happen. That is the definition of the logical fallacy of begging the question. This discussion could serve as an example in formal logic books of this fallacy because you continue to commit it so brazenly.

"It has nothing to do with “supernatural testimony” (there’s no evidence that the Bible even IS supernatural testimony in the first place, apart for its claiming so and lots of people believing it)."

I don't know what you are saying here. I guess my question is simply what kind of "evidence" do you want or would find adequate to verify supernatural events like walking on water that happened 2000 years ago?

You continue in response to how to deal with the Nihilist:

"Well, the man’s obviously a screwed-up arsehole. What do you want me to say to him?"

Well, you need to be able to give him a reason WHY he should care about his neighbor at all, that's not too much to ask I don't think. It's really the foundation of any ethic. Screwed up seems to be a relative term until you can provide some objective footing for why his Nihilism is "bad" and Altruism is "good". It simply isn't enough to just utter "You should do unto others", that may have worked based upon a Christian foundation, but when you try to apply it to a materialist foundation it simply is a subjective ethic to be taken or left by personal preference.

Do unto others fits the Christian worldview because we believe:

A)Man has intrinsic worth and value because he is made in the image of God.

B) That being the case man's life is precious because man is unique in the universe. Therefore any abuse toward man is not just horizontal against a creature but against God who made man.

C)The ethic is universally binding because it is based upon God's character which is unchanging. Thus, it is not subjective or arbitrary (to be taken or dropped at a whim) because it is based on God who created the universe and is above the universe (transcendent).

D)God owns us and has the right to tell us how to live.

" But is that "morality" in the sense that we're talking about? Has morality simply become what God finds pleasing? Ted [Ted is the Nihilist example I used who is wondering why if materialism is true it is "wrong" to molest children], the jerk, would still be a jerk. He'd just refrain from doing what he was previously doing because of fear of being punished. So all you've really been talking about is how to bring delinquents under control, in the only language they understand: threats of violence."

Well, as you can see from above there's more to Christian ethics than threat, that's a rather crude understanding of Christian ethics. The point is that man has value (Which materialism can never really ascribe to man) and crimes against man are crimes against God who made man in His image. So the message is: Don't do harm to your fellow man because life is precious, it is a gift from God. And yes there is threat of judgement from the God who owns us upon those reject the view of the preciousness of life and break ethical laws.

"So basically, if you didn’t believe in God, you’d see no problem with torturing babies? I don’t think so. I think you’re just more interested in scoring points in this debate."

No, that's not my point at all, I don't think all atheists are horrible people. Some of them are actually more moral/loving than some Christians I know, so it is NOT my point that unless you believe in God you will be a complete wreck morally.

My point is that unless you believe in God you simply can not account for WHY you should be moral to begin with, not to mention what IS moral in any non-subjective sense. So, no I don't think that if you don't believe in God that you will become a baby torturer (My account for why the vast majority of Atheists are moral is because they are made in the image of God and by that fact intuitively know right and wrong although they suppress the truth in areas) I do think that you can't provide any real reason WHY you shouldn't without Christian Theism.

"It’s amazing how preachy fundamentalists can get when discussing morals, but take away God, and they sound more like sociopathic delinquents. They lose their bearings when they don’t have to. Sometimes I almost wish them to stay religious, because goodness knows what they'd do if they took their own rhetoric about the necessity of belief in God seriously."

This again simply is NOT my point as I stated above.

"It is if it invokes unsubstantiated entities. Note throughout all this that, even IF religion gives us a better moral foundation than naturalism/atheism, it still has no bearing on the truth claims of religion. I admit from the outset that the problem of ethics is a hard one, because you have to get into how ethics should even be defined, when it's applicable, whether there are any absolutes or if it's context dependent, where we get our ethics from in the first place, how they change through time, and so on. Perhaps it's an intractable problem."

Yes it is, for the non-Christian. I would also argue you have no standard by which to use the term "better" in regards to comparing ethical systems.

"Saying that God endowed us with kindness isn’t any sort of an answer, though. We just pass on the problem to a supposed higher arbiter, and declare it to be a mystery anyway, because God is profoundly mysterious. It just means that God endowed us with kindness. Why did God do it? Because kindness is “good”. Why is kindness good? Because God endowed us with it."

Saying God endowed us with kindness isn't an answer...Well actually it is, it explains where man's moral sense came from, his Creator. God also isn't shrouded in mystery He has revealed Himself, He has not been silent. "Good" is that which is in alignment with the character of God (who is perfect).

"I wasn’t borrowing it, I just happened to hold it myself, and merely expressed it. That it's stated in the Bible in those words was useful for me because I intended it as a rhetorical overture to show that almost anyone can adhere to it, whether or not they are religious. Please don't flatter yourself by thinking that you own the issue, simply because a manifestation of it appears in your holy book."

Well, it's more than that. My point has been that although you may hijack "Do unto others" it really has lost all true meaning when you set it up on a materialist base. By that I mean you simply can not answer WHY "Do unto others" should be obeyed without begging the question (see the first paragraph). So although you may live out "Do unto others" (and I am sure you strive to, and you should) your materialism can not give you any real reason WHY you should follow this ethic to begin with.

" Obviously if you define “dignity” as being in God's image, then you've won the argument by default, because if there is no God, therefore their can't be "dignity". You’re grasping for wishy-washy, vague definitions that no one can rebuke, and to do that you’re assuming the existence of an unsubstantiated entity from the very outset, without providing any independent reasons to take such an idea seriously. You're using the Bible as a blunt weapon to try to get me to admit that atheism and morality can't peacefully coexist."

Well, actually my point in part is that because we live as though man has dignity, and morals exist, that the only thing that can rationally account for these phenomena is the existence of God. My reason for starting presupositionally with the existence of God is that without Him you can't really sufficiently prove anything whether its ethics, uniformity of nature, epistymology, or the laws of logic. Without the existence of God all of these concepts which we assume and use every day crumble to pure relativism and nothing can really be proven.

As far as trying to get you to think Atheism and morality can't exist, my point is a bit more sophisticated than that. My point is yes you may live morally as an Atheist but you can't be rationally justified in doing so, all you can do is chew the scraps from the table Christian ethical table in our post-Christian age.

"Okay, but since I’m not in the business of violating other people’s dignity, I have nothing to worry about."

Well, you aren't rationally justified for not violating a person's dignity. You probably are a fairly moral person but again you can not rationally account for WHY based upon your worldview you should live in a loving man. That's something to worry about, and again it should concern you that you can't provide any real reason based on your worldview why Ted shouldn't molest kids for fun.

"Strange, I don’t find myself raping and molesting, which I should be given that I don’t have a true moral foundation by which to live by. Oh well, sorry to disappoint you. You probably can’t stand the fact that I’m not doing those tings, because then it would give you so much more ammunition to use against atheism."

Oh no I praise God that you haven't done those things, it shows that you are still in touch with reality to some degree even though you are a Materialist. Again, my point isn't that if people become Atheists they automatically cast of all moral regard, my point is simply they have no objective reason to live morally.

"So basically, it’s either your way, all the way, or chaos and mayhem. It’s not going to happen. If you really need God to tell you how to act decently towards someone else, you have some real problems. I suspect that this isn't in fact the case, but if you're going to use these sorts of piss-poor arguments, it might as well be."

Again NOT my point, that was never my point. I never said anything that would give you the notion that that was my point. My hangup is that if you cant tell a Nihilist WHY it is wrong to molest kids you have a big problem.

"Evolution via natural selection. Yours is nothing but an argument from incredulity. "I can't imagine how we can possibly be endowed with these faculties for morality and kindness, therefore God did it". You ask the question as though yours was the only explanation available, which it most certainly is not. The evolution of altruism and emotions, and what selective pressures favoured them, is a hot topic n evolutionary biology. Your question is banal by its implicit assumption that it somehow CAN'T be answered, unless of course we adopt your explanation."

And here's the rub. Evolution is the magic word that makes all of the Materialists problems go away. Well, if you want to say that I am leaving you with one option as to how ethics can be accounted for, I would simply say the same of you. You leave me to accept a Materialist view and abandon any Theistic one. Evolution may or may not have happened but that does not inherently eliminate Theism.

"Obviously you’re utterly ignorant of human psychology, sociology and history. This is another incredulous type of question. You see absolutely everything through a religious lens, to the detriment of everything else....
No, it’s an appeal to modern science. Appealing to authority is what theists do, and the authority they appeal to is not even required to verify its extravagant claims. (in fact, it’s nothing more than claims) Science, on the other hand, at least provides actual evidence to back up its claims."

Pheh, and the ad homimens start to fly...yawn. Your scientific and I inherently am not because I am religious (false dichotomy), two fallacies here. By the way psychology is pretty weak science if you spent any time studying the philosophy of science.

"Or some nomads who wrote a book centuries ago. And yet, we're to believe that they're more well informed than those "big brained fellows". (could this just be anti-intellectualism on your part? Or do scientists not know a shit about what they're talking about?)"

No anti intellectualism at all, I was just saying you made an appeal to an authority to bolster your argument. You still haven't pointed me to any studies to verify the stuff you said about mirrors in the brain and ethics. Left at that what you said is simply an appeal to an authority which is still uncited.

"“Objective meaning”. Fundamentalists seem to be obsessed with “objective meaning”, as though proximate, human meaning wasn’t enough."

Well, apparently it isn't if you can't explain to a Nihilist Ted WHY he shouldn't molest kids for fun. So I think an "obsession" with objectivity is warranted if without it we can't explain why molesting kids is wrong and sheer relativism is all we are left with.

"They want to believe that somehow the universe owes them something, and that without this something, morality and stability are impossible. Instead of learning to live in the real world like grown-ups and dealing with it, they prefer to talk down to others with their childish myths, holding themselves up as authorities on everything (even those things they wouldn't have a clue about, like biology) and that only they can save the world from God's wrath. Fear and intimidation, basically, and not a shred of credibility. That's a corrupt, perverted foundation for ethics. It's really no ethics at all."

Ad hom, and straw-man in one. Firstly, I absolutely love the natural sciences. I find no problem whatsoever with them and my Christianity, you assume that I am against science because of all the rhetoric of the war between faith and science.

Also, am I trying to scare people with fear and intimidation? Again I don't think "behave or you'll burn" is a Biblical way to account for ethics at all, so this is simply a straw man. And again you might think that fear and intimidation are "perverted" in your subjective little universe but that doesn't make them so....that's that pesky lack of objectivity creeping up to make your moral sentences meaningless.

"Oh yeah, how? I know that fundamentalists like to feel superior to others ("People criticise what you say, but they don't give you credit for how loud you say it" - The Daily Show, of course) and like to view everything through a tiny little lens where things are nice and simple, and there are no greys, just black and white, and absolute certainties. (as if just saying so made it true)"

Ad Hominem again. I really don't think I am better than you Mat, honestly. The only difference is that I have stopped hating God, by His grace alone. Also, you seem to have a LOT of assumptions about Christians that simply are unfounded, maybe you should take some time to really get to know some.

"And you’re yet to demonstrate that yours is anything other than subjective, however much it might be dressed up in the language of being “objective”. I'm asking for independent verification, not just claims of its own pre-eminence."

Well, my point is that without Christian Theism objectivity with ethics is simply an illusion. I have not quoted the Bible and told you "There you go!", I have merely referred to it's claims. So, everything I have said is "independent verification" via indirect logical proof.

You say you are a man of science, when you have two theories explaining some phenomena and 1 has multiple anomalies when it tries to explain the phenomena, and 2 has none which one do you go with? So it is with this discussion of ethics.

" That’s because Ted is a mutt, and if I ever have to deal with him he’s getting a boot up the arsehole. If he were to become a Christian and stop doing these things, he would still be a mutt, because someone who's not a mutt won’t do these things in the first place. You’re only bringing up ways for PSYCHOPATHS to be brought under control, not you and me. (not me, anyway, because I'm quite resistant to mythology)"

Well, the point is that you in your Materialism can't furnish what could be considered an answer as to WHY he should behave differently than a Nihilistic ethic. As for how this relates to you and me, you have a gross inconsistency in your philosophy, you can't account for ethics in any sense that is binding upon others. Yet, you insist that molesting children is wrong for Ted, and would never do so yourself, in thinking this way you are being inconsistent with your materialism. I would submit to you that this inconsistency arises because you are made in the image of God and know right and wrong, yet you have rejected the God who made you.

So, you are like a man who sitting on a tree limb (called ethics) decides to cut the branch from the trunk (called God). Now on the ground (called Materialism) the branch has lost all vitality and life because there is no sap in its veins. So now though you cling to you precious branch of ethics it has lost all vitatlity and based uont your materialism it is simply dead. Ethics is dead when based upon Materialist philosophy, they are the true Mythology, just words without any real life or meaning. So, far from being against mythology you have actually embraced mythological notions of right and wrong when your worldview can give them no base on which to thrive.

"And you’ve failed to demonstrate why this has to be so. You basically just threw around a bunch of self-glorifying statements about “objectivity”, without actually thinking about how you can make these statements truly meaningful in the ways that matter to human beings. You've only alluded to blind sycophancy, not why rational people should take your view of morality seriously."

Well, my point is that there is no morality in any objective sense apart from Christian theism. Anyway, put simply I have not just claimed objectivity I have pointed to it, His name is God. He exists outside the natural world which He made, He owns us because He made us, we are made in His image hence we are moral beings, He has also not been silent but has revealed Himself through His word. It is this God (who you hate and are at war with) that gives moral objectivity to us His creatures.

No rational person would reject this in favor of Materialist ethics which can not tell us WHY Steve should refrain from horrible acts. The problem is that man is fallen, and hates this God and labors with all his might to supress the knowledge of Him like Paul the apostle said. You know this God though you deny Him. My plea with you is to lay down your autonomy and come under His Lordship. It is this God to whom you will give an account, yes there is judgement.Without Him, you have no real moral compass, and with Him you do.

You ask how can a rational person accept this? I ask how can a rational person refuse?