It’s okay to listen and nod and go do what you were going to do anyway. But if you’re wanting a scrap...
Your father mentions love, morality and beauty as natural and evidence of God. What happens when your father mentions equally-natural rape? Evidence of God, but a capricious God, would be consistent. Instead your father mentions things he likes as evidence of a God he likes, and things he doesn’t like as evidence you’re wrong.
Apply morality to biology in one person in one part of his or her life and you’re going to be making up stories. Apply biology to large group behavior over long periods of time and you might be on to something. One man and one woman? No idea of their violent tendencies. A million men and a million women? Bet the farm that the men are more violent. Pointing out what one man or woman does as evidence for or against biological roots for morality is a misapplication of the tool.
“I’ll think about that” is a fair response to anything your father says about God or your beliefs. You can then go think about it. Or not think about it. Then you can answer, or not answer. The answer of “I don’t know” is also a fair response.
Here’s one for you to ask him: Can God be surprised? If the answer is no, then ask how you can know something (how to be surprised, what it feels like, memories of it happening) that God doesn’t know. If the answer is yes, ask what it is that your dad knows that God doesn’t know and would be surprised about.
Your father, also, can say “I’ll think about that” and “I don’t know.”
Note: I do not equate what is natural with what is good.
It’s okay to listen and nod and go do what you were going to do anyway. But if you’re wanting a scrap...
Your father mentions love, morality and beauty as natural and evidence of God. What happens when your father mentions equally-natural rape? Evidence of God, but a capricious God, would be consistent. Instead your father mentions things he likes as evidence of a God he likes, and things he doesn’t like as evidence you’re wrong.
Apply morality to biology in one person in one part of his or her life and you’re going to be making up stories. Apply biology to large group behavior over long periods of time and you might be on to something. One man and one woman? No idea of their violent tendencies. A million men and a million women? Bet the farm that the men are more violent. Pointing out what one man or woman does as evidence for or against biological roots for morality is a misapplication of the tool.
“I’ll think about that” is a fair response to anything your father says about God or your beliefs. You can then go think about it. Or not think about it. Then you can answer, or not answer. The answer of “I don’t know” is also a fair response.
Here’s one for you to ask him: Can God be surprised? If the answer is no, then ask how you can know something (how to be surprised, what it feels like, memories of it happening) that God doesn’t know. If the answer is yes, ask what it is that your dad knows that God doesn’t know and would be surprised about.
Your father, also, can say “I’ll think about that” and “I don’t know.”
Note: I do not equate what is natural with what is good.