This thought-provoking item is found at the personal blog of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the Australian entrepreneur who has become the ayatollah of Appalachia. Hambo is famed for his creationist ministry, Answers in Genesis (AIG) and for the infamous, mind-boggling Creation Museum.
Hambo’s latest is Do Secularists Have a Basis for Right or Wrong? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! What a title! Anyone aware of ol’ Hambo’s anti-science crusade is immediately moved to respond: “Do you, Hambo?”
This is an old theme for AIG — they and they alone know the source of morality. The first time we posted about it was here: Creationism and Morality. What words of moral wisdom does Hambo have for us today? Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:
Recently on our good friend Eric Hovind’s program Creation Today, Eric was hosting an interview. In a report on the very liberal Salon website, we read a quote from the person being interviewed:
[Hambo quotes Salon’s quote of the interview guest, Darek Isaacs:] “You have to start asking questions: Well, if evolution is true, and it’s just all about the male propagating their DNA, we had to ask hard questions, like, well, is rape wrong?” Isaacs says to a stunned host.
This is the Salon article he’s talking about: Creationist author asks: If evolution is true, “is rape wrong?” Hambo’s profound thoughts are these:
[I]f man is just an animal and there is no God, then who decides right and wrong? It’s just subjective. And why should what one person think what is “right,” be “right” for another person? Two verses of Scripture come to mind: [we’ll skip those].
Ah, but Hambo, man isn’t just an animal. Aristotle’s famous definition was “Man is a rational animal.” Well, maybe Aristotle didn’t say it, but that’s what we are. Wikipedia has an article on Rational animal. Even the bible agrees that we can figure these things out for ourselves. Here we’ll have to quote what we’ve written a time or two before:
There was the long argument between Abraham and God about the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah. Abraham objected to God’s announcement that He intended to exterminate the population of those cities, and he told God that it would be unjust to kill the good along with the rest. And what of Moses’ reaction when God announced His intention to exterminate the Hebrews because of the golden calf incident? Moses argued with God and won the argument. The Good Book even tells us, in Exodus 32:14 (King James version, of course): “And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.”
Hey, Hambo: Did Abraham and Moses have the Christian worldview? [*No answer*] Let’s read more from Hambo’s essay:
The secularists go ballistic when Christians point out the fact that ultimately, they have no basis for right or wrong or good or bad. Now they can certainly decide a subjective moral code for themselves — and they can decide they believe that is “good” for them and the culture. But it’s just their opinion, so why shouldn’t someone else have a totally different moral code?
It’s a decent question. We once tried to answer it — see A Secular Source of Morality — but we weren’t very persuasive. Hambo continues:
Secularists borrow from the Christian worldview every day in so many ways — they have to because without it, anything goes!
Did Aristotle “borrow from the Christian worldview” — which didn’t exist in his lifetime? Did Buddha or Confucius? They lived even before Aristotle. This is the theological problem of the Virtuous pagan. Hambo is untroubled by such things. He probably thinks those guys are in the Lake of Fire. Without Hambo’s Christian worldview — which includes young-Earth Creationism — they couldn’t have been moral. One might also ask: Was Europe a peaceful, moral paradise when it was dominated for a millennium by the Christian worldview?
Hambo doesn’t bother with such questions. He quotes the Salon article’s response to the rape question:
There are so many issues with [Darek] Isaacs’ argument — the flawed logic, the pseudo-science, conflating rape (a form of violence) with evolution, using rape as a scare tactic against science.
That doesn’t impress ol’ Hambo! Here’s how he handles it:
Yes, it is just the typical emotionalism and false accusations because they can’t (and don’t want to) deal with their insurmountable problem.
That’s about it. So where are we? We’re left with Hambo and his religious viewpoint as the only source of morality. Now there’s a recipe for a wonderful world!
Copyright © 2014. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.