GOD MADE SOME OF US GAY: THE GAY- GENE (PT 2 )

IS HOMOSEXUALITY GENETIC

It is one of the most explosive topics in society today. The social and political ramifications affect the very roots of this country. But is the country being told the truth concerning homosexuality? Is there really a genetic basis for homosexuality?

Former democratic presidential candidate and Vermont Governor Howard Dean signed a bill legalizing civil unions for homosexuals in Vermont. In defending his actions, he commented: “The overwhelming evidence is that there is a very significant, substantial genetic component to it. From a religious point of view, if God had thought homosexuality is a sin, he would not have created gay people” (as quoted in VandeHei, 2004). Dean is not alone in such thinking.

Most people are familiar with the idea that research has been performed that allegedly supports the existence of a gay gene. However, that idea has been a long time in the making. Almost fifty years ago, the landmark Kinsey report was produced using the sexual histories of thousands of Americans. While that report consisted of a diverse sample, it was not a representative sample of the general population (Kinsey, et al., 1948, 1953). In 1994, Richard Friedman and Jennifer Downey published a review on homosexuality in The New England Journal of Medicine. In reviewing Kinsey’s work, they noted:

Kinsey reported that 8 percent of men and 4 percent of women were exclusively homosexual for a period of at least three years during adulthood. Four percent of men and 2 percent of women were exclusively homosexual after adolescence (1994, 331:923).

With this “statistical information” in hand, some sought to change the way homosexuality was viewed by both the public and the medical community. Prior to 1973, homosexuality appeared in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), the official reference book used by the American Psychiatric Association for diagnosing mental disorders in America and throughout much of the rest of the world. Homosexuality was considered a sickness that doctors routinely treated. In 1973, however, it was removed as a sexual disorder, based on the claim that it did not fulfill the “distress and social disability” criteria that were used to define a disorder. Today, there is no mention of homosexuality in the DSM-IV (aside from a section describing gender identity disorder), indicating that individuals with this condition are not suitable candidates for therapy (see American Psychiatric Association, 2000).

Physicians treating patients for homosexuality (to bring about a change in sexual orientation) frequently are reported to ethics committees in an attempt to have them cease. Robert Spitzer lamented:

Several authors have argued that clinicians who attempt to help their clients change their homosexual orientation are violating professional ethical codes by providing a “treatment” that is ineffective, often harmful, and reinforces in their clients the false belief that homosexuality is a disorder and needs treatment (2003, 32:403).

Thus, the stage was set for the appearance of a “gay gene.”

SIMON LEVAY—BRAIN DIFFERENCES

The first “significant” published study that indicated a possible biological role for homosexuality came from Simon LeVay, who was then at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in San Diego, California. In 1991, Dr. LeVay reported subtle differences between the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men (1991). LeVay measured a particular region of the brain (the interstitial nuclei of the anterior hypothalamus—INAH) in postmortem tissue of three distinct groups: (1) women; (2) men who were presumed to be heterosexual; (3) and homosexual men.

LeVay’s Reported Findings

LeVay reported that clusters of these neurons (INAH) in homosexual men were the same size as clusters in women, both of which were significantly smaller than clusters in heterosexual men. LeVay reported that the nuclei in INAH 3 were “more than twice as large in the heterosexual men as in the women. It was also, however, more than twice as large in the heterosexual men as in the homosexual men” (1991, 253:1034). This difference was interpreted as strong evidence of a biological link to homosexuality. LeVay’s assumption was that homosexual urges can be biologically based—so long as cluster size is accepted as being genetically determined.

Problems with LeVay’s Study

When looking at the methodology of the LeVay study, one of the key problems is that the study has never been reproduced. As William Byne noted, LeVay’s work

has not been replicated, and human neuroanatomical studies of this kind have a very poor track record for reproducibility. Indeed, procedures similar to those LeVay used to identify nuclei have previously led researchers astray (1994, 270[5]:53, emp. added).

Additionally, of nineteen homosexual subjects used in the study, all had died of complications of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). AIDS has been shown to decrease testosterone levels, so it should be expected that those who suffered from that condition would have smaller INAH. Byne continued his comments on LeVay’s work.

His inclusion of a few brains from heterosexual men with AIDS did not adequately address the fact that at the time of death, virtually all men with AIDS have decreased testosterone levels as the result of the disease itself or the side effects of particular treatments. To date, LeVay has examined the brain of only one gay man who did not die of AIDS (270:53).

Furthermore, in a scientific environment where controls and standards are a necessity, LeVay did not possess a complete medical history of the individuals included in his study. He therefore was forced to assume the sexual orientation of the non-AIDS victims as being heterosexual, when some may not have been. In addition, bear in mind that he had no evidence regarding the sexual orientation of the women whose brains he examined. LeVay has admitted:

It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain (as quoted in Byrd, et al., 2001, emp. added).

Many have argued that what LeVay discovered in the brains of those he examined was only a result of prior behavior, not the cause of it. Mark Breedlove, a researcher at the University of California at Berkeley, has demonstrated that sexual behavior has an effect on the brain. In referring to his own research, Breedlove commented: “These findings give us proof for what we theoretically know to be the case—that sexual experience can alter the structure of the brain, just as genes can alter it.... [I]t is possible that differences in sexual behavior cause (rather than are caused by) differences in the brain” (as quoted in Byrd, et al., parenthetical item in orig.). Considering this type of research, it makes sense that a homosexual lifestyle (and/or the AIDS condition) could alter the size of the nuclei LeVay was measuring.

What exactly did LeVay find? In actuality, not much. He did observe slight differences between the groups—if you accept the method he used for measuring the size of the neuron clusters (and some researchers do not). When each individual was considered by himself, there was not a significant difference; only when the individuals involved in the study were considered in groups of homosexuals vs. heterosexuals did differences result. Hubbard and Wald commented on this lack of difference:

Though, on average, the size of the hypothalamic nucleus LeVay considered significant was indeed smaller in the men he identified as homosexual, his published data show that the range of sizes of the individual samples was virtually the same as for the heterosexual men. That is, the area was larger in some of the homosexuals than in many of the heterosexual men, and smaller in some of the heterosexual men than in many of the homosexuals. This means that, though the groups showed some difference as groups, there was no way to tell anything about an individual’s sexual orientation by looking at his hypothalamus (1997, pp. 95-96, emp. added).

Being homosexual himself, it is no surprise that LeVay observed: “...[P]eople who think that gays and lesbians are born that way are more likely to support gay rights.” In a Newsweek article, LeVay was quoted as saying, “I felt if I didn’t find any [difference in the hypothalamuses], I would give up a scientific career altogether” (as quoted in Gelman, et al., 1992, p. 49). Given how (poorly) twisted LeVay’s data are, and his own personal bias, his abandonment of science may have ultimately been of greater service.

Brain Plasticity—A Fact Acknowledged by All Neuroscientists

Today, scientists are keenly aware of the fact that the brain is not as “hard-wired” or permanently fixed as once thought—an important factor that LeVay failed to acknowledge. One of the properties of plastic is flexibility—many containers are made out of plastic so that they will not shatter when dropped. In a similar manner, the brain was once considered to be rigid, like Ball^® jars used for canning—but we now know the brain is “plastic” and flexible, and able to reorganize itself. Research has shown that the brain is able to remodel its connections and grow larger, according to the specific areas that are most frequently utilized. Given that we know today that the brain exhibits plasticity, one must ask if the act of living a homosexual lifestyle itself might be responsible for the difference LeVay noted? Commenting on brain plasticity, Shepherd noted:

The inability to generate new neurons might imply that the adult nervous system is a static, “hard-wired” machine. This is far from the truth. Although new neurons cannot be generated, each neuron retains the ability to form new processes and new synaptic connections (1994).

Interestingly, since Shepherd’s textbook was published, additional research has even documented the ability of neurons to be generated within certain areas of the brain. This information must be considered when examining comparative anatomical experiments such as LeVay’s. These cortical rearrangements that occur are not as simple as unplugging a lamp and plugging it into another socket. The changes observed by researchers indicate that if the brain were represented by a home electrical system, then many of the wires within the walls would be pulled out, rewired to different connections in different rooms, new outlets would appear, and some would even carry different voltages. Due to the colossal connectivity that takes place within the brain, any “rewiring” is, by its very nature, going to have an effect on several areas—such as INAH3. Scientists understand these things, yet LeVay’s work is still mentioned as alleged support for the so-called gay gene.

CREDITS :   -Dave Miller, Ph.D. Brad Harrub, Ph.D.

"GOD CREATED SOME OF US GAY" - A scientific analysis of homosexuality and the 'Gay gene' (PT.1)

"This is the Way God Made Me"--A Scientific Examination of Homosexuality and the "Gay Gene"

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D. Brad Harrub, Ph.D.

The trumpets were left at home and the parades were canceled. The press releases and campaign signs were quietly forgotten. The news was big, but it did not contain what some had hoped for. On April 14, 2003, the International Human Genome Consortium announced the successful completion of the Human Genome Project—two years ahead of schedule. The press report read: “The human genome is complete and the Human Genome Project is over” (see “Human Genome Report...,” 2003, emp. added). Most of the major science journals reported on the progress in the field of genetics, but also speculated on how the information would now be used. The one piece of information that never materialized from the Human Genome Project was the identification of the so-called “gay gene.”
Homosexuality has been practiced for thousands of years. Simply put, homosexuality is defined as sexual relations between like genders (i.e., two males or two females). It was Sigmund Freud who first postulated that parental relationships with a child ultimately determine the youngster’s sexual orientation. But this “nurturing” aspect has effectively given way to the “nature” side of the equation. Can some behaviors (e.g., alcoholism, homosexuality, schizophrenia) be explained by genetics? Are these and other behaviors influenced by nature or by nurture? Are they inborn or learned? Some individuals believed that the answer would be found hiding amidst the chromosomes analyzed in the Human Genome Project.
The human X and Y chromosomes (the two “sex” chromosomes) have been completely sequenced. Thanks to work carried out by labs all across the globe, we know that the X chromosome contains 153 million base pairs, and harbors a total of 1168 genes (see NCBI, 2004). The National Center for Biotechnology Information reports that the Y chromosome—which is much smaller—contains “only” 50 million base pairs, and is estimated to contain a mere 251 genes. Educational institutions such as Baylor University, the Max Planck Institute, the Sanger Institute, Washington University in St. Louis, and others have spent countless hours and millions of research dollars analyzing these unique chromosomes. As the data began to pour in, they allowed scientists to construct gene maps—using actual sequences from the Human Genome Project. And yet, neither the map for the X nor the Y chromosome contains any “gay gene.”
What is the truth regarding homosexuality? Too often, speculation, emotions, and politics play a major role in its assessment. The following is a scientific investigation of human homosexuality.

BEHAVIORAL GENETICS AND CIVIL RIGHTS

In an effort to affect public policy and gain acceptance, the assertion often is made that homosexuals deserve equal rights just as other minority groups—and should not be punished for, or forbidden from, expressing their homosexuality. The fight for the acceptance of homosexuality often is compared to “civil rights” movements of racial minorities. Due to America’s failure to settle fully the civil rights issue (i.e., full and equal citizenship of racial minorities), social liberals, feminists, and homosexual activists were provided with the perfect “coat tail” to ride to advance their agenda. Using this camouflage of innate civil liberties, homosexual activists were able to divert attention away from the behavior, and focus it on the “rights.”
The argument goes like this: “Just as a person cannot help being black, female, or Asian, I cannot help being homosexual. We were all born this way, and as such we should be treated equally.” However, this argument fails to comprehend the true “civil rights” movements. The law already protects the civil rights of everyone—black, white, male, female, homosexual, or heterosexual. Homosexuals enjoy the same civil rights everyone else does. The contention arises when specific laws deprive all citizens of certain behaviors (e.g., sodomy, etc.). We should keep in mind that these laws are the same for all members of society. Because of certain deprivations, homosexuals feel as though “equal” rights have been taken away (i.e., marriage, tax breaks, etc.).
Skin color and other genetic traits can be traced through inheritance patterns and simple Mendelian genetics. Homosexuals are identified not by a trait or a gene, but rather by their actions. Without the action, they would be indistinguishable from all other people. It is only when they alter their behavior that they become a group that is recognized as being different. If we were to assume momentarily that homosexuality was genetic, then the most one could conclude is that those individuals were not morally responsible for being homosexual. However, that does not mean that they are not morally responsible for homosexual actions! Merely having the gene would not force one to carry out the behavior. For instance, if scientists were able to document that a “rape gene” existed, we certainly would not blame an individual for possessing this gene, but neither would we allow him to act upon that rape disposition. Neil Risch and his coworkers admitted:

There is little disagreement that male homosexual orientation is not a Mendelian trait. In fact, a priori, one would expect the role of a major gene in male homosexual orientation to be limited because of the strong selective pressures against such a gene. It is unlikely that a major gene underlying such a common trait could persist over time without an extraordinary counterbalancing mechanism (1993, 262:2064).

Evan S. Balaban, a neurobiologist at the Neurosciences Institute in San Diego, noted that

the search for the biological underpinnings of complex human traits has a sorry history of late. In recent years, researchers and the media have proclaimed the “discovery” of genes linked to alcoholism and mental illness as well as to homosexuality. None of the claims...has been confirmed (as quoted in Horgan, 1995).

Charles Mann agreed, stating: “Time and time again, scientists have claimed that particular genes or chromosomal regions are associated with behavioral traits, only to withdraw their findings when they were not replicated” (1994, 264:1687). It appears that the gay gene will be added to this category of unreplicated claims.
The real issue here is homosexual actions that society has deemed immoral and, in many instances, illegal. Since no study has firmly established an underlying genetic cause for homosexuality, arguments suggesting “equal rights” are both baseless and illogical.

REAL STATISTICS

Anyone who has tuned into prime-time television within the past few years has observed an increasing trend of shows featuring characters who are homosexual—and proud of it. It seems as though modern sitcoms require “token” homosexuals in order to be politically correct. The perception is that these individuals share the same apartment buildings, offices, clubs, etc., with heterosexual people, and that we need to realize just how prevalent homosexuality is. So, exactly what fraction of the population do homosexuals actually represent?
The famous Kinsey Institute report often is cited as evidence that 10% of the population is homosexual. In his book, Is It a Choice?: Answers to 300 of the Most Frequently Asked Questions About Gays and Lesbians, Eric Marcus used the Kinsey studies to demonstrate that one in ten people is homosexual (1993). In truth, Kinsey never reported figures that high. The Kinsey Report clearly stated that: “Only about 4 percent of the men [evaluated] were exclusively homosexual throughout their entire lives.... Only 2 or 3 percent of these women were exclusively homosexual their entire lives” (see Reinisch and Beasley, 1990, p. 140). However, there is good reason to believe that the real percentage is not even this high.
While no one has carried out a door-to-door census, we do have a fairly accurate estimate. Interestingly, these statistics came to light in an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court on March 26, 2003, in the Lawrence vs. Texas case (commonly known as the Texas sodomy case). On page 16 of this legal brief, footnote 42 revealed that 31 homosexual and pro-homosexual groups admitted the following:

The most widely accepted study of sexual practices in the United States is the National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS). The NHSLS found that 2.8% of the male, and 1.4% of the female population identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual (Laumann, et al., 1994).

The study also found that only 0.9% of men and 0.4% of women reported having only same-sex partners since age 18—a figure that would represent a total of only 1.4 million Americans as homosexual (based on the last census report, showing roughly 292 million people living in America). The resulting accurate figures demonstrate that significantly less than one percent of the American population claims to be homosexual. The NHSLS results are similar to a survey conducted by the Minnesota Adolescent Health Survey (1986) of public school students. The survey showed that only 0.6% of the boys and 0.2% of the girls identified themselves as “mostly or 100% homosexual.”
The 2000 census sheds even more light on the subject. The overall statistics from the 2000 Census Bureau revealed:

• The total population of the U.S. is 285,230,516.
• The total number of households in the U.S. is 106,741,426.
• The total number of unmarried same-sex households is 601,209.

Thus, out of a population of 106,741,426 households, homosexuals represent 0.42% of those households. That is less than one half of one percent!
But since most people are not mathematicians, we would like to make this point in a way that most individuals will be able to better comprehend. If we were to start a new television sitcom, and wanted to accurately portray homosexual ratios in society, we would need 199 heterosexual actors before we finally introduced one homosexual actor.
And yet modern television casts of three or four often include one or more homosexual actor(s). The statistics from the 2000 census are not figures grabbed from the air and placed on a political sign or Web site to promote a particular agenda. These were census data that were carefully collected from the entire United States population, contrary to the limited scope of studies designed to show a genetic cause for homosexuality.

Take Care of Your Heart

Matt 5:8
Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.

Written by Imagine Foods

According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, heart disease is the leading cause of death in the United States. Death from heart attack, stroke, and other cardiovascular diseases claims one American life every 34 seconds.
Like any other muscle in the body, the heart requires preventive care if it is to continue to operate at top form. While some people are afflicted with congenital heart disease, most people who are affected can point to the way they live as a contributor to their problems. Fortunately, with lifestyle changes, many of these contributing factors can be lessened or eliminated entirely.

• Smoking: The risk of heart disease for smokers is more than twice that of non-smokers. Smokers who quit now will greatly reduce their risk of heart disease and heart attack.

• High fat/high cholesterol diet: There are many wonderful food products available today that are free of cholesterol and saturated fat. Imagine Foods, a natural foods company, makes an array of beverages (Rice Dream and Soy Dream), soups (Imagine Natural Organic Soups and Broths), and Soy Dream and Rice Dream Frozen Desserts that are nondairy, cholesterol free and delicious.In 2001, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said that foods containing at least 6.25 grams of soy protein per serving that are also “low fat,” can claim to be “heart healthy” on their products’ labels, because these foods play a part in reducing the risk of heart disease. Imagine Foods’ Soy Dream Beverages, by way of example, has 7 grams of soy protein in an 8-ounce serving, so it is considered a “heart healthy” food product according to the FDA’s guidelines.

• High blood pressure: A healthy diet (low in saturated fat and cholesterol, high in grains, fruits and vegetables (a plant based diet), losing weight, exercising regularly, restricting sodium, and using medication might help lower blood pressure to a healthy level.

• Family history of coronary artery disease: Make sure that you are aware of your individual medical histories, and that you consult a health care provider for a complete physical.

• Diabetes: The incidence of type 2 diabetes is nearing epidemic proportions in the United States. Many people who are overweight or obese are at risk for type 2 diabetes.

• Lack of exercise: In 1996 the U.S. Surgeon General’s Report on Physical Activity and Health advised Americans to get at least a half-hour of vigorous exercise each day. This year, the National Academies’ Institute of Medicine recommended doubling the amount of physical activity from 30 minutes to 60 minutes of moderately intense physical activity each day.

• Obesity: An estimated 120 million adults in the United States. are overweight or obese. Weight control can be accomplished by various methods including changing your diet to include more “heart healthy” ingredients like those made without saturated fat and cholesterol. Instead of enjoying cream style soups full of dairy and saturated fats, try Imagine Natural Organic Soups and Broths, they’re creamy, delicious and completely dairy and cholesterol free.

• Stress: Exercise is a wonderful stress reliever, but there are plenty of other ways to stop life’s pressures from reaching the boiling point. Some include keeping a journal, meditating regularly, reading novels that “take you away,” spending time with friends and family and trying your hand at healthy all natural recipes.

How Does God Foreknow Free Choices? by Dr william lane Crain

Greetings,

I have been listening to and reading a lot of your material over the last year, and have been learning a lot - not least from the Defenders podcast. I've been searching in your material for the answer to a specific question, but haven't found it - and therefore I write you now.

I'm trying to sort out the matter of free will and God's foreknowledge, and I've come to understand that there is no contradiction between God's foreknowing a free choice, and that choice being truly free. Foreknowing doesn't equal determining.

But - here is my question: How? How does God foreknow what I would freely choose? I can see how he could foresee my choices if I was determined to make a specific choice, based on my genetics/upbringing/situation. But then the will isn't free - is it?

If God knows the position and speed of every particle in the universe - then he could foresee every future event, where the cause/effect is within the realm of materia. But our free choice isn't.

So - in short: By what means can God know what I would freely choose?

Thanks for your time, and for your great work in the Lord.

Paulus

Norway .

Your question presupposes that God exists in time, as we do. But if God exists timelessly, He does not have literal foreknowledge. For what is future for us is not future for Him. So He knows what is future for us, but He does not foreknow it. Defenders of divine timelessness, then, have no difficulty with your question, since it presupposes a temporal deity.

But suppose we think, as I do, that God does exist at every time that there is and so does literally foreknow the future. As you rightly point out, foreknowledge of free choices cannot be based upon inference from present causes, for that would imply determinism and annihilate free choice. So God must know future free choices in some other way.

In getting at this question, it is useful to distinguish two models of divine cognition: a perceptualist model and a conceptualist model. The perceptualist model thinks of God’s cognition on the analogy of sense perception. This model is implicitly presupposed when people talk, as you do, of God’s “foreseeing future events.” He somehow looks ahead in time and “sees” what is there. The language is metaphorical, but I can think of at least two ways to make a perceptualist model of divine foreknowledge work, though they both involve ontological commitments which I am not willing to make.

One way would be to adopt a tenseless theory of time, according to which all events, past, present, and future, are equally real and temporal becoming is just a subjective illusion of human consciousness. The perceptualist model runs into trouble only if time is tensed, for then there is nothing in the future to see. But if all events in time are equally existent, then there is something there for God to perceive. He can just look and see what actually lies ahead.

Another way would be to hold that there are abstract objects (propositions) which bear the values true or false. On a realist view of such objects, there is no need for God to look into the future in order to know what will happen. Rather He can know the future simply by inspecting future-tense propositions (or tenseless propositions about future events) which presently exist and bear the properties true or false. An omniscient God cannot be ignorant of the properties which presently inhere in things. If we are reluctant, as I am, to ascribe reality to abstract objects like propositions, perhaps we could substitute for propositions God’s own belief states or thoughts and the truth values inhering in them.

But there is no reason to adopt a perceptualist model of divine cognition, which is a terribly anthropomorphic way of thinking of God’s cognition—God certainly doesn’t know mathematical or ethical truths, for example, on the basis of anything like sense perception. Rather we can adopt a conceptualist model, which thinks of God’s knowledge more on the analogy of innate ideas. Plato thought that human knowledge is innate and that education consists in simply helping us to recollect the knowledge that we have forgotten. However implausible such a model might be for human cognition, it seems perfectly suited to divine cognition. As an essentially omniscient being God has the property of believing only and all truths. He didn’t get this knowledge from anywhere; He just has it innately. Compare other divine attributes like omnipotence. It makes no sense to ask how God is omnipotent. Exercise? Practice? No, God simply has the essential property of being omnipotent. In the same way He simply has the essential attribute of being omniscient. But then it follows that He must know all future-tense truths, which gives Him complete knowledge of the future.

I am perfectly satisfied with such a simple conceptualist model of divine cognition, but we can push the analysis a notch further. For if God has what theologians call “middle knowledge,” then foreknowledge immediately follows as a consequence. By His middle knowledge God knows what every free person He could have created would freely do in any set of circumstances in which God might place him. So by creating certain persons and placing them in certain circumstances, God knows exactly what they will do, and that without abridging their freedom in any way. God knows the future simply on the basis of His middle knowledge and His knowledge of His choice of which persons and circumstances to create, without any sort of perception of the world.

Of course, this raises the question of the basis of God’s middle knowledge, and here the same sort of answers will be replayed. For example, if individual essences exist (e.g., your essential properties), then God can simply inspect them to see what contingent counterfactual properties inhere in them concerning what the relevant persons would do in various circumstances, were those essences to be instantiated. I’m inclined to regard God’s middle knowledge simply as innate knowledge, which is His in virtue of being an omniscient being.

INTRANSIGENCE ABOUT OBJECTIVE MORAL VALUES

Intransigence about Objective Moral Values

Question: Hello, The last few weeks I have been working my way through On Guard (and was, needless to say, thrilled by it, just as I was by Reasonable Faith). I just had a long conversation with a fellow student of our local university. He knows that I am a Christian, and since the topic shifted toward values and ethics, I began asking him questions about his beliefs on the existence of subjective and objective values - based on the premises that 1. If God does not exist, then objective values do not exist. 2. Objective Values exist. 3. Therefore, God exists. It was a very tough conversation (albeit a cordial one), and I am very glad that my friend is still interested in picking up the conversation where we left off (it is now past 3am in Germany) - he seemed surprisingly hooked by the debate, took his time to think his answers through, and was the one to suggest continuing it sometime soon. (I am praying for him to find Christ). So I just have a few questions: This person is not unsympathetic, in fact, he is generally kinder than most people I have known. However, he seems to cling to the belief that objective values do NOT exist - because however bad we might think an action to be, there will never be universal consensus on its being bad. I tried to explain that this was moving into the realm of subjective values - for instance, even if everyone on earth had been brainwashed and persuaded of national socialism (in which condition the whole world would be subject to a subjective value), this wouldn't change the fact that objectively spoken, the holocaust was still wrong (just like, while the whole world subjectively thought that the earth was flat, objectively the fact remained that it was round, not flat, even when no one believed this). He didn't disagree on this, however he is still not convinced that objective values exist, saying that objectivity only applies to facts, not values. How could I respond to this? My friend also does not find any "problem" with the naturalist assumption that without God naturalism reigns and morality is a delusion (Although he does admit that it is a bitter truth) - and although I countered with naturalist, Darwinist and evolutionary arguments (the shark forcing the female to mate, humanity as compared to bees in a hive, the baboon's self-sacrifice as equal to man's conditioned values, etc.), he still clings to this naturalist worldview. (I also might add that he comes from a Chinese background, thought he isn't per se religious at all. I don't even know yet whether he is an agnostic or an atheist, but am destined to find out soon.) Is there any argument or example I could use that might be able to open his eyes? How am I to adequately continue this conversation? It is the first time that I have dared to venture into the realm of philosophical debate - and I feel very incompetent, as I am very new to it all. I would be really grateful for help (and prayers)! Sincerely, Christina Germany Dr. Craig responds: I’ve been told that the attitude that there are no objective moral values or duties is very widespread among German youth, Christina. I find this surprising, almost shocking, in a country that experienced the horrors of Nazism, including the Holocaust. It seems incredible that people would sincerely believe that such an atrocity is morally indifferent. It makes me wonder if these people are just assuming the truth of atheism, for if they are, then I agree with them that on that assumption there are no objective moral values and duties. That’s just premiss (1) of the argument! So I, like your friend, do not “find any ‘problem’ with the naturalist assumption that without God naturalism reigns and morality is a delusion.” You should not try to counter that belief; you should reinforce it! But the point is that naturalism can’t just be assumed to be true, for such an assumption would beg the question in favor of atheism. We need to ask ourselves, setting aside the assumption of atheism, do objective values and duties exist? In moral experience we find that various values and duties present themselves to us as objectively binding and true. So why deny that experience? Your friend’s argument—that “objective values do NOT exist because however bad we might think an action to be, there will never be universal consensus on its being bad—is a bad argument, as you point out. He’s confusing objectivity with universality. But universality is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition of objectivity. Just as I don’t allow a blind person’s failure to observe a tree to lead me to doubt the objective reality of what I see clearly, so I shouldn’t let the moral blindness of the Nazi war criminal lead me to doubt that the Holocaust was evil. To think that a lack of universal consensus undercuts objectivity is to confuse moral epistemology with moral ontology. Now it sounds as if your friend was convinced by your reply to his objection—way to go, Christina! That’s progress! But now he comes back with a new objection: “objectivity only applies to facts, not values.” Unlike his first objection, this claim is not an argument but merely a reassertion of moral subjectivism. It’s just saying in different words that there are no objective moral values and duties. But what we wanted from him was some reason to doubt the deliverances of our moral experience. He hasn’t provided one. I see that your friend is Chinese. If he was raised and educated in China, then he may well be presupposing a defunct positivistic epistemology, according to which ethical statements make no factual assertions. He needs to understand that this view, popular in the 1930s and ’40s, has been virtually universally abandoned in Western philosophy. It was rooted in the Verification Principle of meaning, which held that if a statement cannot be empirically verified, it is meaningless and devoid of factual content. This principle was not only implausible, consigning vast tracts of human discourse to meaninglessness, but also proved to be self-defeating, since it cannot itself be empirically verified and so is by its own lights devoid of factual content. So why can’t it be a fact that the Holocaust was evil? Why can’t it be a fact that the incarceration and gassing of innocent people was wrong? Why can’t it be a fact that Germany society today is, overall, morally better than it was during the 1930s? These seem like facts to me. A fact is just a true statement. Why should I think that these statements are not true? Louise Anthony, herself a non-theist, put it so well in her debate with me: “Any argument for moral scepticism is going to be based on premisses which are less obvious than the reality of moral values themselves.” Your friend’s scepticism certainly bears out her claim. You ask if there is “any argument or example I could use that might be able to open his eyes?” That’s a question about his personal psychology. See my QoW #431 concerning unbelievers who refuse to be convinced. You’re giving him good arguments and can’t guarantee that he’ll find them convincing. If he was raised in China, you might use illustrations of moral atrocities that might connect with him, like the rape of Nanking by Imperial Japan or the killing of students in Tiananmen Square. Ask him if he thinks it would be all right for him to betray his parents to the government authorities if they were secretly sheltering a North Korean refugee. Remind him that he has to set aside his presupposition of atheism in answering these questions, since we agree that on atheism there are no objective values and duties. You might also share with him other arguments for God’s existence, so that he can see that the moral argument is part of a powerful cumulative case for Christian theism. And, of course, continue to be his friend, regardless of what he thinks. That personal interest may be more effective in opening his heart than the arguments.