We have been considering some of the differences between Christianity and Islam, and have noted that the concept of jihad is rooted both in the Quran and Islamic history. But does that make Western society superior to the Islamic world? What does God think about us?
Atheists sometimes advance what is known as the moral argument against the Bible: the Bible cannot possibly be taken seriously as a moral guide because it shocks and offends our sensibilities. The critics who advance this argument will point to certain episodes, mostly contained in the Old Testament, such as Abraham being told to sacrifice his son Isaac, the Israelites being told to wipe out the Canaanites, the toleration of slavery, and the treatment of women generally. The argument is then made that the Bible reflects the barbaric standards of a primitive society, and therefore cannot be taken seriously today.
The criticism, however, masks a fatal weakness on the part of the critic. In order to sit in judgment on the Bible, one must have a standard external to the Bible by which to judge it. But what is the standard, and where does it come from? When pressed the critic is generally forced to admit that there is no standard – most modern secular critics of the Bible do not admit the existence of moral absolutes. In their view there is no universally binding moral code. Morality is culturally relative.
But if morality is culturally relative, how can someone in one culture sit in judgment on another culture? He is inevitably applying the culturally relative standards of his own, modern, Western society on others. One might ask, however, how a modern society that could drop an atomic bomb on a civilian population during World War II could sit in judgment of an ancient moral code that contains such quaint aphorisms as "thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," or how a society that can support a multi-billion dollar sex industry can criticize the way women were treated in the Bible, but such is the arrogance of modern Western (politically correct) society.
Modern Progress |
But beyond that we ask the fundamental question: should we judge God by our standards, or should we judge ourselves by His? Exactly who or what determines right and wrong in the first place? Once it is conceded that God exists, the answer is obvious. If God is the Creator, Sustainer, and Judge, His will is normative. His opinion is the only one that counts. It is for us to comply with His standards.
In point of fact God has told us what He thinks of us. In Romans 1:18-32 we have a scathing critique of a society in deep moral decline – and it is an apt description of us.
The apostle Paul is writing to the early Christian church in the city of Rome. He had never been there before, and he was describing to the Roman Christians his mission and his message. In setting the stage for his exposition of the Christian gospel he records his impressions of Graeco-Roman society. It is a remarkable piece of psychological insight.
Interestingly, in his analysis of human society he traces the moral decline to a form of secularism. "The wrath of God," he says, "is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men . . ." (Rom. 1:18; NKJV). "Ungodliness" is the failure, or perhaps we should say, the refusal to acknowledge God. "Unrighteousness" is the failure to live by His laws. What makes this a crime in God's sight? The fact that God is our Creator and we owe everything to Him. We are surrounded by evidence in nature of God's wisdom and power, and our conscience bears witness to His existence as well. Hence our refusal to acknowledge His is nothing less that a species of moral rebellion against our Creator. It is the clenched fist of human defiance, and if affects our whole way of looking at reality. They "became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools . . ." (vv. 21,22).
And how does God respond to this? "Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves" (v. 24). As hard as it may seem to believe, God sometimes abandons us to our own lusts. People sometimes say that they see no evidence of God at work in the world today, and up to a point they are absolutely right. God is largely absent from our world, and for good reason. When we ignore Him, when we systematically exclude Him from our thinking and our lives, we fall under His judgment. He leaves us to our own devices.
The "sexual revolution" is a symptom of this abandonment by God, and the prevalence of homosexuality is specifically mentioned as a particularly egregious example of this. "For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful" (vv. 26,27). It is a picture of a society sunk in moral degeneracy.
The terminal stage of social and moral decline is marked by a wide range of compulsive, anti-social and self-destructive behavior. And not only is the behavior indulged in, it is openly condoned. " . . . who knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them" (v. 32). It has become a truly godless society.
It is not hard to see the parallels with modern western society. We have witnessed the radical secularization of our culture, and with it the breakdown of public morality. We have become sexually permissive, and marriage has largely become a meaningless institution. A whole generation of children is being reared in dysfunctional one-parent households. Yet even as we careen toward the precipice of social disintegration, we lack the presence of mind to turn around. We have become a morally bankrupt society bent on self-destruction.
"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting . . . " (v. 28).
For a fascinating article by Rod Dreher of The American Conservative on gay marriage and the sexual revolution, see Sex After Christianity
The critics who advance this argument will point to certain episodes, mostly contained in the Old Testament, such as Abraham being told to sacrifice his son Isaac, the Israelites being told to wipe out the Canaanites, the toleration of slavery, and the treatment of women generally.
ReplyDeleteFor me, the "episode" was God hardening Pharoah's heart, and then punishing him for the hardness of his heart.
In order to sit in judgment on the Bible, one must have a standard external to the Bible by which to judge it.
No, this is a mistaken view. What I could judge, is that the moral standard was changing over time. That can be seen without requiring an external standard. And if God exists outside of time, then God's moral standard should not be changing. What we see in the Bible, is the picture of a God that is evolving along with culture. And the simplest explanation of that, is that man created God in his image, and as human culture evolved, so did the God that this human culture created.
(I'll try posting this with a different account, to see if that avoids it going into the spam queue).
Your comment didn't go into the spam folder at all!
ReplyDeleteIn orthodox Christian theology we would never say that God changes at all. There are several ways to look at the phenomena of Scripture. One is that God is essentially hidden from view --- "Deus absconditus" and that all that we have is a partial revelation. Revelation is also progressive -- more is revealed with the passage of time. It can also be argued that the Old Testament reflects a unique episode in history -- God entering into a covenant with one small nation in a kind of sociological experiment designed to set the stage for the main event, the advent of Christ. In this experiment the old covenant has a dual nature -- it serves partly as a civil law code for a theocratic state, and partly as a theological statement that outlines man's moral obligation to God. The problem is that first was never completely successful, and the latter tended to be forgotten completely. But there was always a line of prophets, culminating in Jesus Himself, that called for repentance. It can be argued that there message was consistent over time.
I just finished reading a fascinating article at the American Conservative entitled "Sex After Christianity" (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/sex-after-christianity/) that touches on an interesting aspect of this. It argues that the Christian concept of sex and marriage and sex was unique, and that western culture cannot survive its disappearance, because it has nothing to offer in its place. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts about the article.
I added the link to the end of my blog post above.
ReplyDeleteIn orthodox Christian theology we would never say that God changes at all.
ReplyDeleteSure. But that is only possible by failing to read the Bible literally, while claiming to be literalists.
I would be interested in hearing your thoughts about the article.
I'm inclined to say that Dreher missed everything important.
The Christian concept of sex and marriage has been contrary to human nature. That becomes increasingly obvious when we see the evidence of child molestation by catholic priests, when we see sexual escapades by evangelical preachers. It also becomes obvious when we realize that masturbation can be important for prostate health, yet is condemned by conservative Christianity.
It isn't the sexual revolution that is causing problems for conservative Christianity. It is the technological revolution, the information revolution, which makes it increasingly difficult for the Church to control the information and thereby keep the people ignorant.
So if the Christian view of sex is bad because it violates human nature, shouldn't we just accept child molestation by Catholic priests and sexual escapades by evangelical preachers as normal and healthy?
ReplyDeleteI have often thought it was curious that secularists condemn the Boy Scouts of America for refusing to admit gay scout leaders, but the Catholic Church for not getting rid of pedophile priests. They're condemning one organization (the Boy Scouts) for doing what they condemned the other organization (the Catholic Church) for not doing -- taking reasonable precautions to protect the young people committed to their care. Maybe the solution is to take a discredited Catholic bishop and make him the head of the Boy Scouts!
Wow. That is very confused.
DeleteSorry -- this comment wound up in the spam folder as well, and I just retrieved it.
Delete"They're condemning one organization (the Boy Scouts) for doing what they condemned the other organization (the Catholic Church) for not doing --"
DeleteBob, not good.
You have to be able to represent the other side in a fair and honest manner. If you have to say this kind of stuff to prop up your own side, then that says much more about you than it does about the people you want to criticise.
Shame on you.
I should also mention that Protestants have never tried to "control information" and "keep people ignorant." They translated the Bible into the vernacular, and then promoted common school education so that everyone could read. The printing press did not create problems for conservative Christianity!
ReplyDeleteI should probably qualify this comment a bit-- the Protestant Reformers were working with state churches, and as a result they sometimes did try to suppress opposing points of view -- the treatment of Michael Servetus is usually cited as the most notorious example. But it is still how to see how conservative Christians were controlling access to information, or what information technology makes available to us that significantly changes our perspective on life. We still live, we still die. We throw bombs and bullets at each other instead of spears and arrows. But we still are what we are as human beings, and in that sense not much has changed since Abraham drove his herds across the desert.
DeleteWalled compounds, homeschoolers etc. are not symbols of a religion that has nothing to fear from free access to information.
DeleteReligion does not do well on the internet.
Not well at all.
Atheists sometimes advance what is known as the moral argument against the Bible...:
ReplyDeleteSadly, you are forced to give us assurances that these kinds of arguments are out there. No actual examples from the internet are referred to and linked.
Hmm.
The argument is then made that the Bible reflects the barbaric standards of a primitive society, and therefore cannot be taken seriously today.
Well, it does indeed connect very well with the standards of a primative society. Especially the bits about women, rape, stoning and slavery, crops, and the butchering of rival tribes.
It reads exactly as if only people wrote the bible.
Middle-Eastern people.
Primative Middle-Eastern people.
With goats.
In order to sit in judgment on the Bible, one must have a standard external to the Bible by which to judge it.
Not sure how this magically makes the stoning/slavery stuff not look like it was written by a primative culture.
It's still there. It hasn't gone away.
But if morality is culturally relative, how can someone in one culture sit in judgment on another culture? He is inevitably applying the culturally relative standards of his own, modern, Western society on others.
That's true. Yet even Christians are deeply offended by the ugly stuff in the Bible. That's why they gloss over it in Sunday School.
One might ask, however, how a modern society that could drop an atomic bomb on a civilian population during World War II could sit in judgment of an ancient moral code...
Tu Quoque Argument.
Exactly who or what determines right and wrong in the first place?
Good question.
Once it is conceded that God exists, the answer is obvious.
Magical answer.
If God is the Creator, Sustainer, and Judge, His will is normative. His opinion is the only one that counts. It is for us to comply with His standards.
Would you torture your children in your basement forever?
The Atheist Experience - More moral than God Part 1
Hard as it may be to believe, knowledge did in fact exist before the Internet. We used to have these things called "books." They were wonderful things. You could go to a place called a "library" and be surrounded by books -- literally thousands and thousands of them. And you could sit in a Windsor chair in some nice quiet corner, hold a book in you lap, and spend hours turning pages and letting the book take your imagination to the far corners of the universe. It was wonderful!
ReplyDeleteYou did a pretty good job summarizing the moral argument against the Bible, for someone who questioned whether or not such an argument had ever been advanced before.
I would be tempted to ask you how you know that rape, stoning, slavery, crops, and the butchering of neighboring tribes are somehow morally "wrong," but I don't want to be accused of "blanking" you -- so I won't.
You did a pretty good job summarizing the moral argument against the Bible, for someone who questioned whether or not such an argument had ever been advanced before.
ReplyDeleteWell, maybe I did or maybe I didn't. You gave no actual examples.
Giving a real example helps assure the reader that you are not just slyly creating a strawman to suit yourself. The idea is to play Devil's Advocate. You have to bend over backwards to fairly and honesty represent the other side. Real examples are a great way for people to see that you are really doing that.
I would be tempted to ask you how you know that rape, stoning, slavery, crops, and the butchering of neighboring tribes are somehow morally "wrong,"
It wouldn't help. We both know that they are wrong. There's no need for "scare quotes". However, they are in the bible multiple times in gruesome and explicit detail. That problem doesn't go quietly disappear.
Would you torture you children in the basement forever?
I'm guessing, no.
Now why you wouldn't do that is an interesting question but...no matter what you reason is...you still wouldn't torture your children in the basement.
Religions are magic-based thinking. Only there's no magic in reality. It's just people. Hence the goats.
Your morality is real. You use it every day as do I. Yet it's nothing to do will a religious book or an invisible, magic man in the sky.
Magical thinking does not help.
Is my morality real? Here's what it is. I have an intuitive sense that certain human actions are morally good and others are morally bad. I notice that others have roughly the same sense (at least until we start talking about things like abortion, divorce, and homosexuality). But the question arises, why do I (we) feel this way? Are our feelings grounded in some external, objective reality? Or are they simply irrational? What makes this question especially acute is that my sense of morality is connected with a feeling that somewhere out there is a Divine lawgiver to Whom we are ultimately accountable. But if no such lawgiver exists, how can I say that rape, robbery and murder are somehow "wrong"? Aren't they things that just somehow happen, like earthquakes and tornadoes?
ReplyDeleteBut I also have a book, written by a number of people who claim to be inspired prophets and apostles, and describing One in particular who is said to have performed miracles, died on a cross, and then rose from the dead. The book says that there is indeed a divine lawgiver and that there is indeed a real difference between right and wrong. The book confirms by inward intuitions.
Taken together, the one confirms the other and it all makes sense. I live in a universe created by an Intelligent Being and everything in it has a divinely ordained purpose. Our Creator has laid down certain ethical norms and expects us to live by them. When I do so I find happiness and fulfillment in life. What more could I ask for?
Is my morality real?
ReplyDeleteSure it is. You could go around flinging poo at strangers from trees...but you don't. Ok, we've never met but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here.
Here's what it is. I have an intuitive sense that certain human actions are morally good and others are morally bad. I notice that others have roughly the same sense (at least until we start talking about things like abortion, divorce, and homosexuality).
So far, so good. You and others do. It's a real thing. It doesn't go away. It's there.
But the question arises, why do I (we) feel this way?
Good question.
Are our feelings grounded in some external, objective reality? Or are they simply irrational?
Non sequitur plus false dichoctomy. You've just gone off the rails.
What makes this question especially acute is that my sense of morality is connected with a feeling that somewhere out there is a Divine lawgiver...
Your feelings? Let's repeat that. Your "feelings". Now spot the problem.
But if no such lawgiver exists, how can I say that rape, robbery and murder are somehow "wrong"?
Yet...you do. That part does not go away. Nor does it go away for other people that do not share you geographically specific beliefs.
Aren't they things that just somehow happen, like earthquakes and tornadoes? Aren't they supposed to controlled by your god too? (...awkward silence...) See? Magical thinking is useful in all sorts of situations. It explains away everything. And nothing at the same time.
Where do my morals come from? Goddidit. Why did the earthquake kill grandma? Goddidit. How did I kick that magnificent winning goal for my football team? Goddidit. Why does this chocolate taste so good? Goddidit. Why is the sky so blue? Goddiddit. Tides go in, tides go out? Yep, Goddidit.
But I also have a book...
Yet, you never ask yourself why you reach for that particular book. I'll give you a hint: Geography.
I live in a universe created by an Intelligent Being and everything in it has a divinely ordained purpose. Our Creator has laid down certain ethical norms and expects us to live by them. When I do so I find happiness and fulfillment in life. What more could I ask for?
"I live in a universe created by Allah and everything in it has a divinely ordained purpose. Our Creator has laid down certain ethical norms and expects us to live by them. When I do so I find happiness and fulfillment in life. What more could I ask for?"
"I live in a universe created by Xenu and everything in it has a divinely ordained purpose. Our Creator has laid down certain ethical norms and expects us to live by them. When I do so I find happiness and fulfillment in life. What more could I ask for?"
"I live in a universe created by Baal and everything in it has a divinely ordained purpose. Our Creator has laid down certain ethical norms and expects us to live by them. When I do so I find happiness and fulfillment in life. What more could I ask for?"
"I live in a universe created by Intelligent Beings and everything in it has a divinely ordained purpose. Our Creators have laid down certain ethical norms and expects us to live by them. When I do so I find happiness and fulfillment in life. What more could I ask for?"
"I live in a universe created by Super Mega Power Aliens and everything in it has a divinely ordained purpose. Our Creators have laid down certain ethical norms and expects us to live by them. When I do so I find happiness and fulfillment in life. What more could I ask for?
I think you trapped yourself in your own argument on this one. Why are my feelings about right and wrong valid, but my feelings about a divine lawgiver are not? What is the difference between the two? Why are feelings sometimes valid and sometimes not? And how can they be valid if they are not rooted in some sort of objective reality?
ReplyDelete"Why are my feelings about right and wrong valid..."
ReplyDeleteYou just changed my argument. You shouldn't do that.
Read what I wrote. Feel free to quote me. In detail. In context.
I'm not talking about "validity".
That was you. Not me.
I'm saying that your morals are real. Now maybe you have awful morals but they still "are". Maybe your morals match up with mine...but they still "are". They exist.
People have morals. It's a real thing. It's mundane.
I have an intuitive sense that certain human actions are morally good and others are morally bad. I notice that others have roughly the same sense...
Indeed you do. It's observable. It's how people behave. You and I are on the same page.
...but my feelings about a divine lawgiver...
This, however, is a different claim.
but my feelings about ghosts...but my feelings about dragons...but my feelings about demons...but my feelings about aliens...but my feelings about vampires...but my feelings about magic...but my feelings about goblins...but my feelings about pink unicorns...etc.
(shrug)
Yes! We both agree that we, and most other human beings, have feelings about right and wrong. But are we self-deluded?
ReplyDeleteWe both agree that we, and most other human beings, have feelings about right and wrong.
ReplyDeleteCan you see that I am not trapped in any argument and that you didn't accurately present my argument? Would it be asking too much for you to acknowledge that before moving on? Please?
But are we self-deluded?
About what? Our morals? They exist. It's the way people behave. We can see that for ourselves.
...but my feelings about a divine lawgiver...
This, however, is a different claim.
But the question arises, why do I (we) feel this way?
Good question.
...my sense of morality is connected with a feeling that somewhere...
Would you accept this type of argument from "someone else"?
(insert your own personal ugly, uncomforable example here) Change the labels and walk a mile in the other guy's shoes.
But I also have a book, written by...
Yes....but...the other guy.
Would you accept this type of argument from "someone else"?
Would you accept this argument using a totally different book?
(insert your own personal ugly, uncomforable example here) Change the labels and walk a mile in the other guy's shoes.
"Our morals? They exist. It's the way people behave. We can see that for ourselves." And what newspapers have you been reading? Shall we start with the scene in Washington? Are things any better in Ottawa, Canberra, or London?
ReplyDeleteAnd then there are the tabloids -- Actually, I wonder if Camilla is really as evil as the American tabloids make her out to be. And, of course, to hear them tell it, every U.S. President has a drinking problem and his wife is having a Lesbian affair.
But what you read in the mainstream media is bad enough. Yes, that's the way people certainly behave!
So, are we to take our moral standards from Bill Clinton? After all, he did "it."
"Can you see that I am not trapped in any argument and that you didn't accurately present my argument? Would it be asking too much for you to acknowledge that before moving on? Please?"
ReplyDeleteAny chance? Any chance at all? Or are you going to blank me again?
"Our morals? They exist. It's the way people behave. We can see that for ourselves." And what newspapers have you been reading?
I don't see what that has to do with anything.
You yourself said that..
Here's what it is. I have an intuitive sense that certain human actions are morally good and others are morally bad. I notice that others have roughly the same sense (at least until we start talking about things like abortion, divorce, and homosexuality).
That doesn't disappear no matter how many newspapers you read. Or do you want to change your position?
So...this is another abandoned converstation?
ReplyDeleteHmm.
"Our morals? They exist. It's the way people behave. We can see that for ourselves." The problem you have here is called the "naturalistic fallacy" It is one thing to say "It's the way people behave." It is an entirely different thing to say that is the way they SHOULD behave. The question is, is there a universal, objective standard of conduct? If the answer is "no," our moral intuitions are unconnected to objective reality. In other words, we are self-deluded.
ReplyDeleteIt is an entirely different thing to say that is the way they SHOULD behave.
ReplyDeleteDo you want to make a claim? Then go ahead. However, let's be clear that...that's not me. That's you. Your claim. If you make it.
The question is, is there a universal, objective standard of conduct?
How did that suddenly become the question? Are you now making a claim or is it an empty, rhetorical question that can be safely ignored?
If the answer is "no," our moral intuitions are unconnected to objective reality.
I don't follow. Our morals exist. We've established that. You and I both observe them. So...(shrug).
What I'm trying to get at here is whether or not there is an objective standard by which to judge human behavior. Yes, people do moral things. They also commit crimes. They also have abortions and commit homosexual acts. So what is right and what is wrong? How do you know?
ReplyDeleteIncidentally, did you happen to click on the link I inserted at the end of the blog post and read Rod Dreher's article, "Sex After Christianity"? It kind of gets to the same issue.
What I'm trying to get at here is whether or not there is an objective standard by which to judge human behavior.
ReplyDeleteSure. If you want to make a claim on this then go ahead and I will pay attention to it. Yet you have to back up any claim with evidence.
So what is right and what is wrong? How do you know?
Good question. So...your answer?
What we both agree on is that morals exist. It's observable. You put it very well and honestly when you said..."an intuitive sense that certain human actions are morally good and others are morally bad. I notice that others have roughly the same sense (at least until we start talking about things like abortion, divorce, and homosexuality)."
That's a good way of putting it. So far, so good.
But the question arises, why do I (we) feel this way?
Good question.
So now....can you tackle it without making unsupported assertions or logical fallacies? You have to make an argument that cannot be sneakily hijacked by some other religious group peddling their different brand-name god.
Let me give you an example:
For a young person raised in a Muslim home it can be a very easy question to answer. He has always been told what to believe. He has always been told how to behave. The answer is Allah.
(See what I did there? And no, that was not a cue for you to talk about Islam. Allah is just one, convenienent example. I shouldn't have to spell it out like that but I really don't want you to go off on a meaningless tangent. It happens too many times.)
Whatever argument you want to make has to be vetted to avoid this problem. Before you go talking about "feelings" about "divine lawgivers" or "books" that you may have, you have to play Devil's Advocate. Walk a mile in the other guy's shoes.
To get the full answer to your question you would have to read some of the key articles I have written in the past -- the links are posted in the sidebar to right. The article "Faith and Reason: the Basis for Knowledge" is especially important.
ReplyDeleteO.K. Let's put myself in a Muslim's shoes. Let's say I am a villager in Afghanistan and a Christian missionary comes to town. I have heard of Jesus, of course -- He is mentioned in the Koran. But what I have always been told about Him is that He is a prophet -- very much like Moses and Mohammed, but that He is definitely not the "Son of God." I have heard that Christians have this blasphemous notion that Allah had sex with Mary and produced the baby Jesus! But what do I make of this missionary and his message?
On the one hand part of it seems illogical -- this whole thing about the Trinity and all. And yet I know what life is like under Islam -- the endemic corruption and violence. And so what the missionary says to me about human nature and the problem of sin ring true. I worry about that. I note I am not the best husband and father. If Allah is just will he cast me into hell? And this missionary guy says this is why Jesus came into the world. I don't know -- I'll have to think about it some more.
To get the full answer to your question you would have to read some of the key articles I have written in the past...
ReplyDeleteThey are not my questions.
So what is right and what is wrong? How do you know?
Yours.
But the question arises, why do I (we) feel this way?
Yours.
Let's say I am a villager in Afghanistan and a Christian missionary comes to town,
Even better. Howabout you say you are a villager in Afghanistan and a Christian missionary...DOESN'T...come to town. Now what? Work from a different perspective.
For once in your life, make a genuine effort.
And yet I know what life is like under Islam -- the endemic corruption and violence.
Would you be comfortable associating with a religion of "endemic corruption and violence"? Probably not. Give the Muslim a little more credit. Try to walk a mile in their shoes. Try.
Whatever argument you want to make has to be vetted to avoid this problem. Before you go talking about "feelings" about "divine lawgivers" or "books" that you may have, you have to play Devil's Advocate. Walk a mile in the other guy's shoes.
And if a Christian missionary doesn't come to town, how would I know about Christianity? How could I assess the validity of the Bible if I never saw one?
ReplyDeleteAnd if a Christian missionary doesn't come to town, how would I know about Christianity? How could I assess the validity of the Bible if I never saw one?
ReplyDeleteWhy do you want to inject Christianity or the Bible into the conversation? Did you miss the part where I asked you to walk a mile in the other guy's shoes?
Devil's Advocate? Hello?
Perhaps another label swap is in order...
And if a Muslim missionary doesn't come to town, how would I know about Islam? How could I assess the validity of the Koran if I never saw one?
And if a Mormon missionary doesn't come to town, how would I know about Mormonism? How could I assess the validity of the Book of Mormon if I never saw one?
And if a Scientology missionary doesn't come to town, how would I know about Scientology? How could I assess the validity of the Dianetics if I never saw one?
And if a Bhuddist missionary doesn't come to town, how would I know about The Fat One? How could I assess the validity of the Passage of the Tao if I never saw one?
(And no, that was not a cue for you to talk about Islam, Bhuddism, Scientology etc. They are just random, convenienent examples. I shouldn't have to spell it out like that but I really don't want you to go off on a meaningless tangent like you always seem to want to. It happens too many times. Stop it.)
You yourself said that..
Here's what it is. I have an intuitive sense that certain human actions are morally good and others are morally bad. I notice that others have roughly the same sense (at least until we start talking about things like abortion, divorce, and homosexuality).
So now you have questions stemming from this observation that we both agree on.
Such as..."So what is right and what is wrong? How do you know?" and "But the question arises, why do I (we) feel this way?"
Ok, great.
All good questions.
So now you can try and answer these questions if you think you can. If you want to make an honest claim then make it and I promise that I will pay attention to it. I won't ignore it. In fact, I will probably quote it in great detail.
Whatever argument you want to make has to be vetted to avoid going on about Muslims or whatever. You have to make an argument that cannot be sneakily hijacked by some other religious group (any religious group) peddling their different brand-name god.
Can you tackle it without making unsupported assertions or logical fallacies?