You have come to many correct conclusions in principle.
I would suggest that any moral pontifications based on anything other than the foundational statement that the God of the Bible lives and speaks will collapse into internal incoherency if one asks a sufficient number of questions.
Only the worldview in which the God of the Bible reigns supreme can answer these questions and give a sufficient justification for making those kinds of value judgments.
I appreciate the reply. The irony is that any moral pontification based on the God of the Bible will surely collapse into internal incoherency. I'd opine that the sufficient number of questions for this would be quite low. I try not to rely on such as a crutch. But, to each their own.
Nice talking to you!
Can you give me an example of the internal incoherency you have in mind?
I can think of quite a few ways in which a humanistic worldview collapses. One example:
Do objective moral duties exist?
I can give you an example. It is not, however, my goal to attack your beliefs or push some sort of anti-religious agenda. It is true that I am not religious but I tend to have more in common with those that are than not. And, from a pure alignment perspective we are more likely allies than enemies. So, I am choosing not to provide examples in an attempt to avoid creating a wedge.
As to your second question: I’d take issue with the word “duties”. I do not think that people do have an obligation to be moral. I would prefer that they are and I believe that it would be in their best interest. But, they also have free will. They can be as good or as evil as they want. Coming at it from a secular vs religious approach does not change that. That said, I do believe that it is possible to define objective moral principles without the need of a deity. For an example, you can look at something like Universally Preferable Behavior: http://www.fdrurl.com/UPBPDF.
Just because I try to persuade you of the truth of the Bible and you tell me sincere honest objections to give me an opportunity to answer wouldn't make us enemies. :-) I've been screamed at, menaced, and cussed out so many times for the sake of the Gospel that I promise that some calmly weighed words won't bother me.
I would take issue with this expression, because I believe it to be an example of begging the question. We are talking about what is good, right, and justifiable. To assume that we know what is in someone's best interest is to assume that we do know what is good and right.
As for Molyneux's piece, can you tell me whether he shows how to bridge the Is/Ought gap therein?
Allow me to give you an example of a failure in Molyneux's analysis, on page 22.
First, someone may indeed not value truth and just be trolling for the lulz.
Second and more importantly, what would be Molyneux's argument as to one's duty to adhere to true beliefs once discovered? Does he just assume it? Or does he prove it?