Reddit mentions of Fall of Interpretation: Philosophical Foundations For A Creational Hermeneutic

I fear we may end up talking past each other, so this will probably be my last response.

>There is a blatant misconstruing, against the way the term has been classically defined and accepted, and what modern atheists are trying to construe it as in an attempt to aid their argument against the Christian apologist, making it mean something it does not. From where I sit, the "Christian atheist" is either an atheist or agnostic (I wouldn't label them either, as the article does not make plain whether they affirm the non-existence of God/gods or not) who is attempting to assemble a morality similar to Christ's own, but without the necessary objective morality that comes with it.

As I said, it's not a misconstruing, it's a different construing. You're right--modern atheists of the sort you are referring to do indeed construe it that way for that purpose, but that's not the only way it must be construed. So far from where you sit, I don't really see where you're disagreeing with me. I haven't said that Christian atheists aren't actually atheists (the vast majority are with only a couple of agnostics who own the label), I just don't think the label "Christian atheist" is bad. If you want to talk about trying to create precise terms, what would you rather label them as? I find that it captures their position pretty succinctly, myself. To be honest, I don't actually think we're disagreeing on anything here. I just want to say one can be an atheist that is sympathetic to religious ideas, which is different than the militant atheists you'll find in the Dawkins camp--just like there are plenty of different kinds of Christians, all with their own modified labels.

>God, as understood by both classical, contemporary, and modern theology is a being with a Perfect Moral Character. Using His own Perfect Moral Character to shape His own Will & Creation, His Moral commands & duties are of an objective standard. Without this objective standard (IE: the non-existence of God), then morality ironically shifts to a sort of "post-modern" state, where it has no objective meaning, and morality is just the phrase used by people to describe a category of subjective statements on what they accept as "right" and "wrong", but in the end have no means to define those two terms.

This understanding of God is in no way universal whatsoever and reflects a highly narrow reading of the Christian tradition. One need only read the mystics (particularly Eckhart) classically, process theologians and Kierkegaard as contemporary, and thinkers like Jean-Luc Marion or John D. Caputo in current scholarship to see that this "objective standard" you refer to is not only dismissed by many Christians but is even labeled as violent and not reflective of the biblical witness, assuming that's what you're after in the end. Furthermore, I think your understanding of postmodernism is that it is synonymous with relativism, which is a grave mistake and actually led to some very interesting discussions between famous postmoderns like Derrida and relativists like Rorty.

>This is my problem with Post-modernism and post-modern thought - it is apparently impossible to communicate at any point. They are two different words with two different meanings than many modern atheists are trying to define as the same. They are trying to make "not believing in any gods" (not P) & "believing gods do not exist" (P) mean the same thing. THIS is incoherent, and it plainly obvious.

If that's you're problem, I have to say I'm not sure you've read any of the postmoderns. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it appears you've misunderstood them (and the fact that they can even be misunderstood seems to only prove my point here). It's not impossible to communicate--the point is that we only communicate within particular contexts and lexical ecosystems. If I say one word in one community it means one thing, and if I say the same word in a different community it may mean something else. This is not prescriptive but descriptive. Surely you can think of an example yourself! It happens all the time, and is usually the root cause of many things as simple as a petty argument between lovers or friends. Human beings are always finite, and language, too, is always finite--there is no "objective" language to be had. Any claim that this or that definition is the pure one to be accepted by all has no grounds other than your own community's, which then becomes nothing more than imperialism. A great book on this by a Christian was actually reissued recently--James K. A. Smith's The Fall of Interpretation is excellent. I highly encourage you to look into it.

>I understand what they say, I reject the idea based on many different grounds. The Moral Argument itself for example is perfectly designed to challenge this attempt at reconciling this thought process. From what I can see, "Christian atheists" are no different then, say, humanists, except humanists derive their morality from the betterment of the species rather than a 2000 year-old text that the "Christian atheist" rejects in the majority.

The Moral Argument is just as flawed as their own. I disagree with them, as I said, but as Kierkegaard has shown quite convincingly God is not in the business of establishing and bulwarking ethical systems--if he was, he probably wouldn't ask Abraham to kill his son, at which point Abraham steps outside the ethical. For more on this, see his Fear and Trembling. "Objectivity" is generally a code word for that strange set of doctrines held by western secularism and rationality as a whole; I have yet to find out why Christians are so interested in arguing on their terms.

>I never said this wasn't so - don't put words in my mouth please. It is a fact that Morality is quite separate from a belief in God, as is demonstrated very often. I'm not contending that morality cannot be derived; if the nonbeliever wants to recognize an intrinsic value of human beings, there is no reason to think that he can't work out an ethical code that a believer would generally agree with. Regardless of how someone comes to that belief however, the Christian contends and any morality is inseparable from God's Existence. Without His existence, then any moral objectivity is thrown out.

Forgive me, it just seems as though when you say things like "The Moral Argument itself for example is perfectly designed to challenge this attempt at reconciling this thought process," you're trying to suggest there's no logical way for people to do what the Christian atheists are doing, and I think that's just simply false. Also, as a Christian, I don't find "moral objectivity" to be a worthwhile thing to prove. At least, it doesn't seem like Jesus was very interested in proving it (nor can I think of another reference from the New Testament where this appears to be an important point).