To be fair to Brandon, his original post I have diverted somewhat from the importance and the beauty of the sacrament as a metaphor for the process of eternal forgiveness. The reason for the diversion though is still clear - it is the relationship between the religious process and that of self forgiveness. This was the crux of my opening - to remove the religious trappings of the Sacrament and just do the good deeds. His response -

So, when you take away true goodness from men's hearts (as happened in the fall), the rest of my commentator's comments fall away. I won't forgive. I won't ask for forgiveness. I will not abide by my own moral code of the golden rule. I won't. Read world history to see this.

I do wish to acknowledge here that I do, always have, admired the metaphor of the Sacrament. As a creation of an idea it has great beauty. Whether you believe it to be god-given or not is immaterial to my respect for the imagery.

And from Stephen Baker -

A good Biblical example of this is King David's words in Psalm 51. He wrote this psalm after he committed adultery with a woman and had her husband murdered in order to cover it up. Real guilt? Absolutely. Did he sin against these people? Certainly.

The point here is still one of choice. In the first instance, no one can "take away" anything from a man's heart. This is where the debates of the Ancient Greeks - Plato, Aristotle and co - are so interesting. Is man born with goodness or is it (virtue is the word used in most of the translations I have read) capable of being taught and learned?

I for one ascribe to the theory that virtue/goodness can be taught and learned. In fact I go one step further - it is an essential to the survival of society that there be a common set of values and ethics taught to all children. As I have written elsewhere, there is a fundamental here which is common to all of the major religions. In every case the divisions between religion, culture, law, and society are not sharp but are gradual. There are all manner of shades of grey between. As an example, much in the mind of americans at the moment, who can argue that the laws of NZ, or US, are not based in both broad terms and specifically on the Ten Commandments? That really is for debate (if debatable at all) at another time.

In the case of David, as SB has given it, both his comment and his quotation ignore the choicethat was made. His punishment is his own conscience - the guilt if you want - that he has to live with for the rest of his life. The argument presented is that the real sin is against his God. I can accept that is good for believers. Despite what SB says -

Now, I know that all of that sounds like nonsense to you, being a professed atheist. But I am going to go out on a limb: The Bible tells me that, despite all of your protestations to the contrary, you know that there is a personal God who made you and against whom you have sinned.

It does not sound like "nonsense". That is a slur against my (continuing attempts at) objectivity. It makes sense, if you need the assistance of "a higher authority" to maintain your grip on equilibrium and sanity. If I had slept with another man's wife, and killed him, I would probably not be able to live with the guilt of that either. I confess that I do not know that I would be able handle it at all.

It is clear from what SB says that his belief in his religion is profound, to the extent that he is prepared to ascribe ideas and consequences of faith to circumstances and people he knows nothing of. Stephen, for your benefit, I "know" that there is NOT a personal God who made me and against whom I have "sinned". That is a presumption that is not only totally wrong, you have no right to make it. If I have a "god" it is the fact that I have life and choice. Can I sin against that "god" if I AM that "god". If I am objective about it yes I can. I can sin against myself. I can forgive myself also. Is this the "god" that you speak of? As far as I am concerned, NO! Why is that? Very simply because I do not "worship" myself any more than I worship the superstition and mythos of a religion.

But let us please return to the debate...

The difference between David and myself (if I can be this bold) is that I recognise that guilt and pangs of conscience are the consequence of wrong action. Faced with the choice of whether to sleep with another man's wife or not, the choice of whether to kill or not, I know in my present circumstances what I would choose. And there, truly, is the difference between our positions. Whether through fear of consequences, or simple disinterest, is immaterial. I have no desire or need to commit such acts. If you read the Commandments it is apparent that David committed another sin which he does not mention in the Psalm, or at least the piece quoted. He desired something that was not his, the wife of another man.

Baker acknowledges this, I think I am right in reading that between the lines of scripture that he quotes. But then, sadly, he does break with his interpretation of my position. Firstly -

Therefore, I appeal to you to search your conscience. Why would an animal have a conscience? Why would an animal have a sense of right and wrong? How could non-personal forces (time+chance+matter) give rise to personality? How could mere chemical reactions give rise to love?

Searching of my conscience on this matter is not required - I do really know it quite well. The connection between animal and human "emotion" is, I believe, quite direct. I do not dispute the "non-personal forces of time matter and chance" and the role that they have played in human evolution. I look further in fact to the scientists at the leading edge of human knowledge who profess their amazement at how this universe exists in terms of religious awe and wonderment. That does not reduce or invalidate their knowledge in any way at all. I respect them and their beliefs.

The difference, and criticise me as you like for it, is that I am prepared to accept that things are as they are. I have no pretentions about my place in the universe. I do not desire what others have and is not mine. Does that indicate that I am unsure about the existence of a god? Not in my mind.

There is a weakness in my argument that Brandon has picked up, but not in the way that I would express it -

Moreover, to make that which is good "that which I would like done to me" and that which is bad "that which I would not like done to me" is completely hopeless outside Christ. Christ gave that command to the faithful, those who have the Holy Spirit of God within them, and they have a hard enough time doing it! To make good and bad so relativistic is dangerous.

I must agree that to measure the world by my own standards is a "dangerous thing to do". Either one is open to criticism for being "too far up yourself", or your survival will be threatened if not terminated by others not observing the same standard.

The pseudo-religious argument of "chemical reactions" - indisputable as a matter of scientific fact - that Baker then raises;

How could mere chemical reactions give rise to love?

If you say that personality and love are illusions, then why go on living? And further, what makes the actions of Hitler, Napoleon, Yamamoto, Ghenghis Khan, and a thousand other evil men and women bad in the first place? If you are just a chemical reaction--the random and purposeless product of time+chance+matter--then why is it more "right" for me to talk cordially with you than it is for me to strangle you to death? After all, we terminate chemical reactions all the time.

I would submit to you that you cannot live with that. If you take your presuppositions to their logical conclusions, you have no reason to live or love. You have no reason to think and write. And nothing that you write or think is any more "right" than what a crazed lunatic thinks or writes. Again, how can a mere chemical reaction be "right" or "wrong"? It simply is.

strikes me as a very red herring. The process of thought has little or nothing to do with this other than that it has evolved. There is no difference in fundamentals between the "thought" mechanisms of a human and a dog, or a fish, a tapeworm, or even a coral polyp. There are differences in scope in the "thought" but the function and chemistry are identical. The process of the evolution is perhaps open to debate (the chance element)but the end result is not. I see this as a simple case of "what works, survives; what does not work, does not."

This argument then crosses back to "conscience, personality and love", and a strong implication that the evolution of self-awareness (personality is only part of it) and love are not evolutionary but are in some way imbued only upon humans. Can you say with any certainty that there is no "love" between cow and bull at the time of mating? Can you discount the fact that many animals, including some birds, mate for life? Most important, how do you know? Is it scientifically proven that they do not have emotions? Sorry, rant starting there... Yes, you can throw the points back in my face as you want. The truth is no one knows!. Your faith gives you certainty, but that does not (in my most humble opinion) create fact.

To be frank, this line of argument in my mind makes too much of absolutes, and ignores that any evolutionary process (whether natural or man-made) leaves a trail of evidence. Whether it be a series of automobile designs, the progression from Wright Flyer to Concorde, or differences in bill shape in finches from the Galapagos Islands matters not. In terms of the present debate we have no way of knowing the consequences of the chemical reactions (identical in tapeworm and human) in terms of the level of consciousness, self-awareness.

Nowhere have I argued that personality and love are illusions. That is tantamount to saying "I do not exist".

Personality is a fundamental of self-awareness. We can measure self-awareness to some extent - there is a simple experiment using a mirror that has been used to determine when a child reaches the level of self-awareness. It is a simple and well documented process. Where it has importance in this debate is the fact that a babe is not born with self-awareness, nor I submit does a babe have knowledge or intention of either "right" or "wrong". At this level, humans are still "animal" in every meaning of the word. The development of their attributes of self-awareness and personality are, I once again submit, a process that can be likened to a form of evolution. The personality evolves from a combination of response to environment and intentional modification (otherwise known as "teaching").

It is at this point that I have to admit that religion has had an indelible impact upon my life, my persona, and my present existance. Note that I have said "religion" and not "god", and the distinction is intentional. Religion as a system of societal regulation is not a bad thing. The attempts of the communist nations to replace religion with the state illustrates how more subtle, and hence effective, religion is in this process of social engineering.

It is at this point too that I do make contact with both of the other commentators thus far - religion has its place in ensuring the continuance of the processes and structures of our society. It is not perfect. The likes of any number of evil people including those I mentioned clearly illustrated that. I go one step further and say that many of those considered "evil" would not have seen their choices, their decisions, to have "evil" or even "wrong" consequences. That makes no excuse for what they have done. They are the people whom the Ancient Greeks would have branded and shunned to the wilds to survive as best they might without the aid of any other man. They are the people who have no virtue. They have progressed beyond "animal" in some respects but have failed to become "human in others. In very fundamental terms they are the mistakes and dead-ends of their personal evolution. Do not misinterpret this. It is not an argument for eugenics. It can only be said of a person after the deeds that prove the fact. The truth of the matter is that religion provides the framework through which the aberrations of such people, and their impact upon society and our civilisation, is minimised. Even the objective analysis of a middle-aged aberration such as myself has to show the extent and impact of religion. Examination of any other civilisation will show the presence of similar organisational structures that (by differing methods) control and mediate the very existence of the associated social structures. Even fairly superficial examination of those processes will reveal the presence of the essentials of a religion - a power greater than that of man, a person representing the earthly existence of that power, and a measure of fear supported by supernatural retribution for refusal to acknowledge the rules imposed on the society.

So how does this fit with my view of the evolution of human society and civil structure? The example that gives the clearest lead in my mind is that of incest, and the control of genetic lines through control of mating. (Yes folks, this is going to get very basic, but please bear with me...)

There are a number of fundamentals that are common to all "successful" human societies, one of which is the "universal" ban on incest - permitting the mating of close relatives both vertically and horizontally within a "family". My rationale that this is an artifact from "pre-civilisation" runs like this -

If we look to the natural behaviour of most mammals, even reptiles and birds, we find any number of "mechanisms" that have the effect of minimising the likelihood of sibling-parent or sibling-sibling matings. The most frequently seen is the expulsion of male children from a "clan" prior to or soon after sexual maturity is reached. The expulsion may be by the females, or it might be through the strength of the leading male - obviously it varies from species to species. The point is that it is effective over a wide range of species.

Why then should this process not be pre-programmed into the human species?

Why then should such a "rule" not become a fundamental control on the conduct of a society, a civilisation?

Is that being too simplistic? You betcha, I accept that. But I neither have I been able to fault the logic of the process. It is a universal that transcends species. Does that prove the existence of god? For many it would, for me it does not. It is the evolution of a successful survival strategy in just one element of life.

Does that also come back to chemical reacions? Youbetcha here also. And, as I pointed out earlier, humans "work" by the same chemical process as do tapeworms. No, don't get offended, just think. Why should a tapeworm muscle work differently to a humans? Why should a human nerve synapse work to a different set of chemical rules to a tapeworms? The processes work, there is no need for them to evolve past that. It is only the complexity that is increased.

Out of that complexity comes the fact of human self-awareness, personality, and love.

This is where SB has gotten it totally wrong. I do not say that "personality and love are illusions" at all. They are fundamentals of human existence. He has read that into my argument where it does not exist for a moment. Where we differ is how they came to be. In his belief they are the product of a supernatural being. In my mind (and there is scientific evidence and research supporting this) they are the product of our evolution. The mechanics of that proposal are disputable, mainly from the point of terminology and pedantics as much as anything. Look at it this way - I love my wife very much, it has led to the successful breeding of two very good members of society. There are matters of degree and success (in the fundamentals of love and perpetuation of our respective genes) on both sides of what she and I have achieved. There are no absolutes involved, as much as one might try to create them.

If I have kept you this long, thank you for your patience. It shows that you have good control over the chemical processes. I will pick up on that when challenged -

Chemistry + Self-awareness + personality + self-control... = survival.