My \u201cWhere the Light Is\u201d post received a lengthy reply from Josh, the man who inspired the original discussion. Below is my open letter reply:<\/p>\n
Josh, I\u2019m going to reply to what you wrote, but I want to say something here at the outset. I like you. I like James. I like your family. In fact, you and your family are some of my favorite people on Planet Earth. So I\u2019d like to fashion this reply in a way that will allow me to continue to like you, and, hopefully, for you to continue to like me, assuming you did in the first place.<\/p>\n
Maybe I\u2019m misreading your tone, but much of what you wrote is snarky and condescending. You speak to me as if I were an imbecile, too stupid to live. That tone is not helpful for productive discussion. It doesn\u2019t make your argument more persuasive; it often makes you look a little silly, and at times, it\u2019s hard for me not to be personally insulted by what you write. I like to think it was not your intent to insult me, so I\u2019ll try to fashion a response that treats you respectfully in an attempt to focus solely on the issues at hand.<\/p>\n
I cannot guarantee I will succeed.<\/p>\n
Your words are in dark, forest green.<\/p>\n
Ji\u2026er, Stallion? Josh here. James sent me a link to this blog post. Since it appears to be sort of addressed to me, and it has ignited a heated debate in your comments section, I guess I\u2019ll add my two cents to the flood of responses. \u2026 James\u2019s paraphrasing of my beliefs are inaccurate\u2026 Such is the bane of my existence.<\/span><\/p>\n I seem to have stepped into the middle of a fraternal feud, and such was not my intent.<\/p>\n I\u2019ll respond to a few of your questions and statements that you have brought up here.<\/span><\/p>\n OK. Shoot.<\/p>\n Stallion: \u201cJosh believes\u2026there is no material evidence of [God\u2019s] existence\u2026.To which my response is, \u2018Sez who?\u2019\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n The answer is in the statement: Josh sez.<\/span><\/p>\n Well, you got me there. In my defense, I was using a colloquial expression to suggest that different people can reach different conclusions from the same set of facts, and I was well aware that you were the one who sezzed it.<\/p>\n \u2026 you go on to demonstrate I\u2019m wrong by producing the evidence [of God’s existence], because \u201call things\u201d is evidence?<\/span><\/p>\n To which I say: That\u2019s a pretty low standard of criteria\u2026in fact, it may very well be the lowest standard possible. <\/span><\/p>\n Three verses later, Alma clarifies by what he means by \u201call things:<\/span><\/p>\n All things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator. \u2013 Alma 30:44<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In other words, the very fact that things exist, whether or not you like them, or whether or not they\u2019re nice, or whether or not they kill people, is evidence that something created them.<\/p>\n You then proceed to cite examples of bad things as proof that God doesn\u2019t exist: the Holocaust, colon cancer, hermaphrodism, Battlestar Galactica, Chaz Bono. You\u2019re confusing the existence of God with the character of God. If you find a house built in the middle of the desert, proving that the builder was a felon who deep-fries puppies doesn\u2019t mean the house happened by accident.<\/p>\n Oh. I see.<\/span><\/p>\n Here\u2019s where your snark really begins.<\/p>\n But wait, that wasn\u2019t the BEST evidence.<\/span><\/p>\n Oh, well what IS the best evidence, Stallion?<\/span><\/p>\n It must be pretty lousy evidence for you to draw it out like this.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cThe best evidence for God\u2019s existence is internal [moral standards], not external.\u201d After all, C.S. Lewis says so.<\/span><\/p>\n The BEST evidence for God\u2019s existence to a Mormon comes not from the rationale of another Mormon, but from a non-Mormon? Maybe the Church of England is the one true church?<\/span><\/p>\n I don\u2019t believe for an instant that you really think I\u2019m claiming the Church of England is the one true church. Was that a joke? It just comes off like a snide, superior gibe.<\/p>\n C.S. Lewis is a great writer, and he described this phenomenon clearly and effectively. Mormons have done that, too. It\u2019s the message, not the messenger, which interests me. If Hitler had said the same thing, it would still be true.<\/p>\n And BEST evidence?<\/span><\/p>\n I guess it\u2019s a simple equation: M (morals)=G(God). Or simply: M=G. But does M really equal G?<\/span><\/p>\n No. You guess wrong. The existence of \u201cmorals\u201d isn\u2019t proof of God. What\u2019s proof is that everyone intrinsically has the same<\/em> morals. It\u2019s the universality of basic morality that demonstrates that there is a God, and what\u2019s more, that said God is interested in how you behave. It\u2019s also evidence of God\u2019s character \u2013 he wants us to be good and wants us not to be bad.<\/p>\n Animals don\u2019t have this internal morality. When a python eats a baby, it\u2019s not wracked with guilt for taking a human life. Good and Bad exist only as intellectual ideas, yet everyone on earth has the same<\/em> ideas on this subject. That demonstrates a universal order, an order that clearly shares agrees with those ideas.<\/p>\n Stallion: \u201cThat\u2019s why you will not find a civilization that applauds murder for material gain\u2026\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Sure, you\u2019ll find INDIVIDUALS who murder (1 Nephi 4:10, 18), but not CIVILIZATIONS. And that\u2019s the key qualification to this equation of M=G.<\/span><\/p>\n Wait a sec\u2026what\u2019s this? \u201c[T]he Nephites who had escaped into the country southward were hunted by the Lamanites, until they were all destroyed.\u201d (Mormon 8:2). Oh, so civilizations DO murder?<\/span><\/p>\n Here\u2019s where your snark makes you look silly. Do you really think I don\u2019t realize that civilizations commit murder?<\/p>\n Please reread my sentence. I stated that \u201cyou will not find a civilization that applauds<\/em> murder for material gain.\u201d (Emphasis added.)\u00a0You have decided that applauds<\/em> is synonymous with commits<\/em>. Your misreading informs your argument for two more paragraphs:<\/p>\n But just a sec\u2026they didn\u2019t do it for material gain did they? Maybe THAT\u2019S the key qualification to M=G. Let\u2019s read a bit further in Mormon here\u2026oh, wait, verse 9 mentions something about robbers?<\/span><\/p>\n Hmmm\u2026so confusing\u2026<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s only confusing for people who can\u2019t use a thesaurus. My point still stands.<\/p>\n All civilizations, even the nastiest ones, have laws on the books against murder for material gain. Again, it\u2019s not just the act that matters \u2013 it\u2019s the intention behind the act. Killing someone who is about to kill your family is applauded. Killing someone because you want their tennis shoes is not. Being able to make a moral distinction between those two acts is evidence that there is a God who cares about the difference between right and wrong.<\/p>\n When talking about acts of aggression and murder by the civilizations \u2013 wars of plunder, et al – even the most evil civilizations don\u2019t frame their acts of aggression in terms of sheer love of plunder. They cite ancient wrongs or their genetic nobility or some other rationalization for evil. They wrap their aggression in noble terms because they know that simply robbing people because you want their stuff is a bad thing to do. Those who are brazen enough to admit their evil intentions make no pretense that they are noble and should be applauded for doing so.<\/p>\n I dunno, M=G doesn\u2019t seem to hold up to scrutiny.<\/span><\/p>\n If M=G is the same as \u201capplauds=commits,\u201d then you\u2019re right. Otherwise, you look silly.<\/p>\n So is there ANY evidence God exists?<\/span><\/p>\n Stallion: \u201cEvolution\u2019s inability to offer a plausible alternative also ought to be put in the \u2018plus\u2019 column as evidence in God\u2019s favor.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Oh? Go on.<\/span><\/p>\n How is \u201cOh? Go on,\u201d helpful? (Clearly I\u2019m about to say something stupid, I guess.)<\/p>\n Stallion: \u201cIntelligent Design proponents have pointed out several different biological constructs that are irreducibly complex. Michael Behe points to the flagellum\u2026\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n So the evidences produced by Intelligent Design proponents are evidence in God\u2019s favor? Or in favor of some Intelligent Designer? Because it seems to me these are not exactly the same things. I mean, isn\u2019t Satan, hypothetically speaking, an Intelligent Designer? Or Xenu? Or Allah? Or Thor? Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Or sadistic Aliens?<\/span><\/p>\n Hmmm\u2026so confusing\u2026<\/span><\/p>\n What\u2019s confusing is that you seem to have ignored a good chunk of my original post, where I say exactly that. Allow me to quote me.<\/p>\n \u201cSo have I proved God exists? Not at all. I think I\u2019ve effectively demonstrated gaps in Darwinian theory to explain the origins of life, and I\u2019ve offered a suggestion that biological constructs are designed by intelligence. But the theories to explain that intelligence are endless, and only a few of them would include a God who sent His only son to die for our sins. Some have proposed the idea of aliens seeding the earth with life in a theory called \u201cpanspermia.\u201d There\u2019s the theory of the Flying Spaghetti Monster who made us for fun and then used his noodly appendages to plant fake dinosaur bones to freak out paleontologists. There\u2019s Scientology, which says the evil galactic emperor Xenu trapped billions of spirits on here on Earth \u2013 or Teegeeack, as they say it in Scientologese \u2013 with Hawaiian volcanic explosions.\u201d The reason I say the best evidence for God is internal is because that internal evidence gives us a picture of what kind of God we\u2019re dealing with. A prankster of a flying spaghetti monster or an evil galactic overlord with a volcano fetish wouldn\u2019t imbue us with a fundamental understanding of the difference between good and evil.<\/p>\n Fortunately, we need not worry about that little conundrum since all these \u201cirreducibly complex\u201d constructs are, in fact, reducible. You say, \u201cThe flagellum is constructed of 46 moving parts. If you only have 45 of the 46, you don\u2019t have a slightly-less-useful flagellum; you\u2019ve got nothing but genetic junk that doesn\u2019t do anything.\u201d Accept that when you remove about 20 of those protein components of the bacterial flagellum, you get a highly effective \u201csyringe\u201d that is used by the bacteria that transmits the bubonic plague (which is estimated to have killed 30-40 percent of the European population in the 14th Century, incidentally. Evidence of God? Hmmm\u2026). Here\u2019s a link to a Nova documentary that will help you visualize this reducibility of the bacterial flagellum:
\n<\/span>
\nThanks for taking the time to reply at length.<\/p>\n
\n– Me<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/span>
\n