The Absence of a Coherent Biblical Morality

◉ The Incoherence of Biblical Morality: A Logical Examination

^{Click image to view larger version.} | King Kevin Analogy

One of the core claims within Christianity is that God provides a coherent moral standard through divine revelation—namely the Bible, the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and moral intuitions. However, a closer examination reveals that this framework fails to deliver the consistency and objectivity it promises. Christians are compelled to accept God’s authority as moral before they can evaluate it, creating a profound logical incoherence. This essay argues that the Christian moral system collapses under its own premises, as it lacks the necessary foundations for objective coherence and verification.

The Problem of Verification: Accepting Authority Before Assessment

To claim that God is the ultimate moral authority, one must first establish the moral nature of God. However, the Christian system demands that believers accept God’s authority as moral before they have any means of verification. This reliance creates a circular dependency: God’s morality is assumed to justify obedience to His commands, while the commands themselves are presented as the sole evidence of His moral nature.

This can be stated as follows:

God is assumed to be the source of moral standards.
Moral commands (e.g., biblical instructions) derive their authority solely from God.
There is no independent standard by which to assess God’s commands as moral before one accepts His authority.

In symbolic form:

Let G represent “God is moral,” and C represent “God’s commands are moral.”
The Christian framework asserts: $G \rightarrow C$ (If God is moral, His commands are moral).
Yet, to justify G, the only evidence provided is C.

This results in circular reasoning, where the moral authority of God (G) is established by His commands (C), and His commands are justified only by His assumed authority. Without an external, independent standard, this system cannot prove its own coherence.

The Failure of Moral Intuitions

Proponents of biblical morality sometimes argue that human moral intuitions align with divine commands, demonstrating God’s objective moral nature. However, moral intuitions are demonstrably inconsistent and culturally influenced. For example, contemporary Christians may intuitively reject biblical instructions that permit slavery or subjugate women, even while affirming the Bible’s overall authority.

This inconsistency undermines the claim that moral intuitions reflect an immutable, objective standard derived from God. In symbolic logic:

Let M represent “Moral intuitions align with God’s standard.”
Observational evidence demonstrates: $\neg M$ (Moral intuitions do not consistently align).

Thus, if moral intuitions were reliable indicators of divine morality, their failure to align with biblical injunctions negates that reliability. Christians are left with two contradictory positions:

Biblical commands represent God’s standard of morality.
Human moral intuitions, allegedly designed by God, often reject those commands.

The contradiction reveals that moral intuitions cannot serve as evidence for an objective divine morality.

A moral non-realist position, sometimes called “emotivism.”
All moral systems Phil has encountered reduce under scrutiny to either blind obedience or raw emotions with no actual obligatory force. Either God or “morality” is invoked in an illegitimate attempt to reify emotions of abhorrence and disgust. There are only emotions.

The Holy Spirit’s Alleged Guidance

Another proposed source of divine morality is the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which is believed to provide believers with insight into moral truth. However, in practice, believers report conflicting moral convictions on critical issues. From political ideologies to ethical dilemmas, appeals to the Holy Spirit yield no unified moral direction but instead reflect subjective biases and cultural influences.

This failure can be expressed logically:

Let H represent “The Holy Spirit provides coherent moral guidance.”
Evidence of conflicting moral claims suggests: $\neg H$ (The Holy Spirit does not produce coherent moral guidance).

Thus, the guidance of the Holy Spirit fails as a reliable source of moral objectivity. Instead of delivering divine clarity, it becomes indistinguishable from personal intuition or cultural conditioning.

The Contradictions of Biblical Injunctions

The final pillar of biblical morality is Scripture itself, which claims to present God’s commands. Yet the Bible contains contradictory, context-dependent, and morally problematic instructions. Examples include commands endorsing slavery (Exodus 21:2-6), genocide (1 Samuel 15:3), and severe punishments for minor infractions (Leviticus 20:9). Modern Christians reject many of these commands as immoral, even while affirming the Bible’s divine origin.

This inconsistency reveals that biblical commands cannot form a coherent moral system. Symbolically:

Let B represent “The Bible provides a coherent moral standard.”
Observational evidence of contradictions implies: $\neg B$ (The Bible does not provide a coherent standard).

If Scripture cannot deliver a unified moral framework, it cannot serve as evidence for God’s moral authority. Instead, believers are forced to subjectively interpret biblical texts, leading to divergent conclusions and undermining claims of objectivity.

The Logical Collapse of Biblical Morality

The combined failures of moral intuitions, Holy Spirit guidance, and biblical commands produce a system devoid of coherence. Christians are left with a circular demand: they must accept God’s moral authority before they can assess it. Yet no part of the Christian framework—whether moral intuitions, divine guidance, or Scripture—can independently verify this authority.

The logical structure of the failure can be summarized as follows:

Premise 1: For biblical morality to be coherent, moral intuitions, divine guidance, and biblical commands must align.
$(M \land H \land B) \rightarrow C$
Premise 2: Moral intuitions fail to align with divine commands. $\neg M$
Premise 3: The Holy Spirit does not provide consistent moral guidance. $\neg H$
Premise 4: Biblical commands are contradictory and fail to provide a coherent moral standard. $\neg B$
Conclusion: Biblical morality is not coherent. $\neg C$

In short, even if God exists, the proposed sources of divine morality do not produce the coherence or objectivity required to validate God’s moral authority.

Conclusion

The claim that biblical morality offers a coherent, objective standard cannot withstand logical scrutiny. Christians are forced into blind acceptance of God’s authority, without any independent means to assess His moral nature. This circular reliance, combined with the failures of moral intuitions, alleged divine guidance, and biblical commands, reveals a profound incoherence at the heart of Christian morality. A truly objective moral standard would demand external verification and consistency—both of which the Christian framework fails to provide.

Supplemental: Degree of Disagreements on Moral Issues Among Christians: Statistical Analysis

The chart below is from a 2023 survey called Christian Thought Survey of 406 Christian ministers from 22 denominational groups. Part of this survey explored moral sentiments among these ministers.

charts-5-full-final Download

The survey data highlights significant disagreements on moral issues among Christians, as indicated by the degree of dissent (measured as the distance between the 25th and 75th percentile of credences). Below is a detailed analysis of key moral questions and their corresponding dissent values:

1. Sexual Ethics

“Divorce is justified if a spouse is romantically unfaithful”
- Credence: 62.4%
- Dissent: 58.1%
“Self-masturbation is always sinful”
- Credence: 53.9%
- Dissent: 50.0%
“Introducing sex toys or costumes into a Christian marriage is sinful”
- Credence: 30.4%
- Dissent: 50.0%
“Anal sex is sinful, even with a spouse”
- Credence: 61.8%
- Dissent: 70.1% (one of the highest degrees of dissent on any issue).

Analysis:
The moral issues surrounding sexual behavior generate strong polarization. While some Christians uphold traditional prohibitions, others embrace more permissive views, leading to dissent levels exceeding 50% for many items.

2. Divorce and Marriage

“It is not intrinsically immoral for those divorced to remarry”
- Credence: 85.0%
- Dissent: 10.1%
“Divorce is justified if a spouse is not sexually unfaithful but romantically unfaithful”
- Credence: 62.4%
- Dissent: 58.1%

Analysis:
While there is strong consensus that remarriage is not intrinsically immoral (low dissent), the justification for divorce beyond sexual unfaithfulness provokes significant disagreement.

3. Slavery and Biblical Context

“Slavery was allowed by God for a time only because it was so entrenched in the culture of the ancient world”
- Credence: 68.6%
- Dissent: 34.0%
“The most severe type of slavery allowed by God in the Old Testament would be sinful if practiced today”
- Credence: 76.2%
- Dissent: 30.1%

Analysis:
Christians generally agree that biblical slavery cannot be morally justified in modern contexts. However, dissent values around 30-35% still indicate discomfort or reluctance to reconcile slavery’s biblical endorsement.

4. Sin and Moral Accountability

“God justly deems humans culpable for a sin-nature they neither requested nor can avoid”
- Credence: 67.8%
- Dissent: 29.1%
“Unredeemed sinners deserve eternal torment”
- Credence: 59.7%
- Dissent: 80.0% (another high degree of dissent).

Analysis:
The concept of moral accountability for sin generates deep divisions, especially regarding eternal punishment. Dissent values near 80% suggest profound discomfort and disagreement within Christian communities.

5. Moral Law and Objective Standards

“We cannot confidently know what is moral without the Bible”
- Credence: 80.4%
- Dissent: 21.1%
“Homosexual acts are always sinful”
- Credence: 77.5%
- Dissent: 29.1%
“Sibling incest is objectively evil and not merely emotionally abhorrent”
- Credence: 85.0%
- Dissent: 3.0%

Analysis:
While some issues (e.g., incest) produce strong consensus with low dissent, modern cultural topics like homosexuality elicit notable disagreement, with dissent values approaching 30%.

6. Violence and Justified Action

“Those who provide abortions can be justifiably killed to protect the unborn”
- Credence: 24.5%
- Dissent: 32.0%
“Armed insurrection against a government that legalized abortion is justified”
- Credence: 33.3%
- Dissent: 50.0%

Analysis:
Violence-related moral questions show low average credence but significant dissent, highlighting a lack of alignment on extreme applications of moral principles.

7. Moral Intuitions and Emotions

“We must sometimes ignore our moral intuitions to act truly morally”
- Credence: 53.9%
- Dissent: 50.0%
“What I feel are moral intuitions may merely be my emotions”
- Credence: 32.4%
- Dissent: 50.1%

Analysis:
There is a clear lack of consensus on the relationship between moral intuitions and emotions. Christians remain divided on whether moral intuitions are reliable guides for ethical behavior.

Key Trends and Takeaways

High Dissent Levels:
Issues related to sexuality, sin, eternal punishment, and violence elicit dissent levels exceeding 50-70%, demonstrating substantial disagreements.
Cultural Influence:
Modern ethical questions (e.g., divorce, sexuality, violence) reveal greater polarization compared to questions of biblical literalism or traditional moral views.
Foundational Disagreements:
Statements addressing moral accountability, moral intuitions, and the role of emotions display consistent dissent, suggesting a lack of shared epistemic foundations among Christians.

In conclusion, the survey statistics highlight significant fragmentation among Christians on key moral issues. Dissent values exceeding 50% on critical topics undermine any claim of a unified or coherent biblical morality. This data reinforces the argument that Christians do not possess an objective, consistent moral standard derived from their faith.

A Survey on Christian Morality

1a. Obligation claim: If killing abortion doctors would (in fact) protect the unborn, then killing abortion doctors would be morally obligatory; therefore, failing to kill them would be morally wrong.

1b. Permission claim: If killing abortion doctors would (in fact) protect the unborn, then killing abortion doctors would be morally permissible.

For any divorced individual, entering a new marriage (i.e., “remarrying”) is morally impermissible.
Voluntarily sharing a meal with a person who has repudiated Christianity (an “apostate”) is morally impermissible.
Knowingly exceeding posted highway speed limits is morally impermissible.
For married couples, engaging with each other in oral sex or anal sex is morally impermissible.
Practicing (i.e., performing or arranging) circumcision or clitoridectomy is morally impermissible.
It would be morally permissible for a government to kill individuals on the basis of their being homosexual (i.e., because they are homosexual).
Intentionally causing someone to believe you feel the opposite of what you actually feel (i.e., affective deception) is morally impermissible.
Question (permission/obligation at issue): Is it morally wrong to refuse to give someone your coat when they ask for it?
It is morally impermissible to spend one’s finite earthly life pursuing earthly pleasures while “un-Gospelled” unbelievers face eternal hell, given that one expects infinite time in heaven for rest later.
Fighting in war for one’s country solely to gain additional territory is morally impermissible.
Divorcing one’s spouse solely because the spouse romantically kissed another person is morally impermissible.
If you know someone is starving to death, then failing to send money to help them is morally impermissible.

How might a moral anti-realist, nonetheless, employ reductio ad absurdum arguments that introduce the assumption of morality to demonstrate moral incoherence?

A moral anti-realist rejects the stance that there are objective, mind-independent moral truths. However, moral anti-realists can still utilize reductio ad absurdum arguments by temporarily assuming a moral premise and demonstrating its internal inconsistency or incoherence. Below is a step-by-step explanation of how this works.

1. Internal vs. External Critiques

A reductio ad absurdum argument functions by assuming a statement (in this case, a moral principle or a set of moral premises) and showing that it leads to a logical contradiction or an implausible conclusion.

Internal critique: The anti-realist engages with the moral claims as if they were true. By working within those claims, the anti-realist shows that they lead to contradictions—thus undermining the set of claims on their own grounds.
External critique: The anti-realist’s own stance (that moral facts are not objective) need not be invoked directly. Rather, the argument focuses on whether the moral framework, taken at face value, can be consistent.

2. Stipulated Moral Assumptions

Even if the anti-realist does not endorse moral assumptions as true, they can stipulate those assumptions for the sake of argument:

Assume a moral principle: For instance, “One ought to maximize overall happiness in every situation.”
Derive implications: From that principle, draw out what actions are prescribed in specific cases.
Reveal inconsistencies: Show how these prescriptions might lead to contradictory requirements or incoherent outcomes (e.g., requiring mutually exclusive actions).

If the framework collapses into contradiction when taken seriously, it is shown to be incoherent on its own terms.

3. Clarifying the Role of Anti-Realism

The key to this approach is recognizing that moral anti-realism is about the ontological and truth-valued status of moral claims, not about whether one can talk about “morality” hypothetically. The anti-realist can:

Demonstrate logical inconsistency: Show that certain moral doctrines cannot be coherently endorsed, even if one took them to be “true” within a particular moral system.
Undermine moral systems from within: By using the system’s own rules, the anti-realist effectively points out the absurdity or internal contradiction without needing to affirm any objective moral fact.

4. Conclusion

A moral anti-realist can employ a reductio ad absurdum by entering a moral system as if it were valid and then demonstrating that it yields contradictions when its principles are taken to their logical conclusion. This method does not require believing in objective moral truths but rather uses internal critique to highlight moral incoherence.

Symbolic Logic Representation

Here’s a formalized structure to represent the reductio ad absurdum process when applied to a moral premise, demonstrating internal inconsistency:

Step 1: Initial Moral Premise

Let $M_1$ represent a moral principle.
Example:
$M_1$ : “One ought to maximize overall happiness.”

Step 2: Hypothetical Assumptions

Introduce hypothetical cases based on this principle.
Let $A$ and $B$ represent actions under consideration.

$C_1$ : If $A$ maximizes happiness, then $A$ ought to be done:
$M_1 \rightarrow O(A)$
$C_2$ : If $B$ maximizes happiness, then $B$ ought to be done:
$M_1 \rightarrow O(B)$

Step 3: Introduce Conflict

Suppose in a specific scenario both $A$ and $B$ cannot be done simultaneously:
$\neg \exists X (A \land B)$

However, if $A$ and $B$ both independently maximize happiness, the principle requires both actions:
$M_1 \rightarrow (O(A) \land O(B))$

This leads to the contradiction:
$O(A) \land O(B) \land \neg (A \land B)$

Step 4: Reductio Ad Absurdum

Since the principle $M_1$ generates a contradiction, by reductio, $M_1$ is internally incoherent:
$\neg M_1$

Formal Structure Summary

Assume moral principle $M_1$ .
Derive implications under different cases:
$M_1 \rightarrow O(A)$ , $M_1 \rightarrow O(B)$ .
Identify mutually exclusive actions: $\neg (A \land B)$ .
Derive a contradiction:
$O(A) \land O(B) \land \neg (A \land B)$ .
Conclude by reductio: $\neg M_1$ .

This shows that $M_1$ , as formulated, cannot consistently apply to all scenarios without leading to absurd conclusions. Therefore, the anti-realist successfully critiques the coherence of the moral system without affirming any objective moral truths.

See also:

#06 ✓ Consider: Does the morality of the Bible reflect the character of an unchanging God, or the disposition of changing cultures?

#41 ✓ Consider: Is there strong consensus among Christians regarding the alleged objective morality attributed to the biblical God?

✓ The Reality of Moral Non-Realism

The following is a comprehensive assessment of the responses to a challenge to Christians (in a Facebook group called “Christian Apologetics“) to provide a coherent account of their moral system.

Assessment of the responses to the challenge.

PROMPT: Rigorously assess the responses of the interlocutors in the discussion in the attached PDF for 1) relevance, 2) logical coherence, 3) avoidance of logical fallacies, and 4) civility. [Entire thread submitted Sept 2, 2025.]

GROK: Assessment of Interlocutors’ Responses

The discussion revolves around P.S.’s claim that Christian morality lacks coherence, citing contradictions in the Bible, varying moral intuitions, and conflicting Holy Spirit guidance. I assessed each interlocutor’s contributions (grouped by their responses) based on the four criteria:

Relevance: How well the response addresses the core topic (coherence of Christian morality).
Logical Coherence: Internal consistency and sound reasoning in the argument.
Avoidance of Logical Fallacies: Absence of errors like ad hominem, strawman, circular reasoning, etc.
Civility: Tone is respectful, avoids insults or condescension.

Assessments are based on the full provided dialogue (pages 1-64). Ratings are qualitative (High, Medium, Low) with brief explanations. Interlocutors with minimal contributions (e.g., one-line agreements) are noted briefly.

Interlocutor	Relevance	Logical Coherence	Avoidance of Fallacies	Civility	Overall Summary
P.S. (Phil Stilwell)	High: Consistently focuses on coherence, contradictions, and surveys; poses questions to test claims.	High: Arguments are structured, use evidence (e.g., surveys, Bible verses), and follow logical progression (e.g., circularity critiques).	High: Avoids fallacies; uses inductive evidence and direct quotes; no ad hominem.	High: Polite, invites dialogue, responds substantively without insults.	Strong, rigorous engagement; drives the discussion with evidence-based critiques.
C.H.	Medium: Addresses cultural context of morality but shifts to church authority.	Medium: Consistent in deferring to church/priest, but lacks explanation of how this resolves contradictions.	Medium: Some whataboutism (e.g., “but you do? Lol”), but mostly avoids major fallacies.	Medium: Casual tone with “lol,” but no overt hostility; edits for clarity.	Defensive but civil; relies on authority without deep resolution.
A.H.	High: Directly engages historical/cultural contexts, critiques blind obedience, and discusses sovereignty.	High: Logical flow (e.g., conditions in 1500BC vs. now); uses analogies effectively.	High: Avoids fallacies; focuses on evidence from Bible/history.	High: Respectful, no insults; engages multiple threads.	Thoughtful, evidence-based; strengthens critiques of Christian morality.
M.D.	Low: Brief claim about Holy Spirit guidance without elaboration.	Low: Asserts without supporting reasoning.	Medium: No clear fallacies, but unsubstantiated assertion.	High: Neutral tone.	Minimal contribution; lacks depth.
A.S.	Medium: Addresses Holy Spirit’s role in moral conclusions but evades specifics.	Medium: Consistent on “ultimately yes,” but vague on “here and now.”	Medium: Begging the question (assumes true Spirit leads to agreement).	High: Polite.	Defensive; promises convergence but doesn’t demonstrate it.
T.R.	High: Engages Bible’s nature, slavery, sin, and morality deeply.	High: Structured responses; distinguishes descriptive vs. prescriptive.	High: Avoids fallacies; uses evidence from Bible/anthropology.	High: Respectful, edited for clarity.	Strong apologetics; focuses on redemption over moral code.
K.K.	High: Discusses cultural context, slavery, Amalekites, and moral dilemmas.	Medium: Consistent deference to God, but shifts to “humans muck up what’s simple.”	Medium: Some tu quoque (e.g., “humans do X”); circular on God’s judgment.	High: Polite, no insults.	Engaged but relies on divine sovereignty to resolve issues.
R.P.	Low: Single “agree” response.	Low: No reasoning.	High: No fallacies.	High: Neutral.	Minimal; supportive but unsubstantive.
L.G.	High: Critiques genocide, child killing, and consistency.	High: Logical (e.g., God judged but Israelites executed).	High: Avoids fallacies.	High: Respectful.	Concise, evidence-based critiques.
I.M.	Medium: Demands evidence for claims; notes “scattergun approach.”	Medium: Points to lack of support but doesn’t counter substantively.	High: No fallacies.	Medium: Calls it “impossible to engage,” slightly dismissive.	Challenges form but not content deeply.
J.H.	Low: Suggests “find the fallacy” without specifying.	Low: No detailed analysis.	Medium: Possible ad hominem implication.	Medium: Playful but evasive.	Minimal; invites game but doesn’t play.
A.O.	Low: Asks to engage members over self-referencing.	Low: Administrative note.	High: No fallacies.	High: Polite.	Moderator-like; brief.
M.B.	Low: Single agreement.	Low: No reasoning.	High: No fallacies.	High: Neutral.	Minimal.
D.F.	Medium: Questions survey reliability and sample size.	Medium: Focuses on methodology but evades moral questions.	High: No fallacies; valid stats query.	High: Neutral.	Engages evidence but conditions response.
B.K.	Medium: Claims Bible consistency; rejects morality as “concept.”	Low: Circular (Bible consistent because God is); no true Scotsman on Christians.	Low: Special pleading, cherry-picking history.	Medium: Dismissive (“not worth my time”).	Defensive; evades direct engagement.
S.M.	Low: Suggests hermeneutics issue without elaboration.	Low: No reasoning.	Medium: Possible ad hominem (implied lack of understanding).	Medium: Brief.	Minimal.
C.N.	High: Engages epistemology, Hume, Trinity as ground.	Medium: Consistent presuppositionalism, but circular (Trinity grounds logic because Bible says so).	Low: Begging the question, self-refutation claims.	Medium: Accusatory (“self-refuting,” “fool”) but edits politely.	Deep but evasive on moral specifics.
M.H.	Medium: Focuses on grace over morality; quotes Bible extensively.	Medium: Consistent on sin/grace, but evades coherence.	Low: Circular (God’s ways higher); ad hominem (“red herring”).	Medium: Calls post “red herring,” but civil.	Relies on Scripture; defensive.
H.M.	High: Addresses contradictions, application vs. principle.	Medium: Logical distinction, but doesn’t resolve core conflicts.	High: Avoids fallacies.	High: Polite.	Thoughtful; attempts resolution.
J.E.	Medium: Discusses law evolution, Ten Commandments.	Medium: Consistent on fulfillment, but concedes “evolved” (undermines timelessness).	High: No major fallacies.	High: Polite.	Engaged but concedes ground.
J.C.	Low: Dismisses with “can’t understand without Spirit.”	Low: Circular (lack Spirit because can’t understand).	Low: Ad hominem (“fool,” “swine”); no true Scotsman.	Low: Insulting, dismissive.	Evasive; uncivil.
J.P.	Low: Advises ignoring; quotes Bible.	Low: No reasoning on morality.	Medium: Appeal to authority (Bible).	Medium: Neutral.	Minimal; avoidance tactic.
A.M. 662	Low: Brief on sexuality.	Low: Assertion only.	High: No fallacies.	Medium: Calls it “delusional.”	Minimal; dismissive.
Sa.S.	Medium: Outlines gospel, sin, salvation.	Medium: Consistent theology, but evades moral coherence.	High: No fallacies.	High: Polite.	Focuses on soteriology over morality.
D.M.	Medium: Distinguishes vicious/virtuous circles; cites Romans/John.	Medium: Asserts virtuous circles exist, but no proof.	Low: Begging the question on circles.	High: Polite.	Brief; unproven claim.
Si.S.	Low: Demands evidence; calls “trolling.”	Low: No counter-argument.	Medium: Ad hominem implication.	Medium: Dismissive.	Evasive.
J.K.	Low: Dismisses as “prots not Bible.”	Low: No reasoning.	Medium: No true Scotsman (Protestants).	Medium: Sarcastic.	Minimal.
C.D.	Medium: Notes disagreement doesn’t disprove truth.	Medium: Valid point, but no resolution of contradictions.	High: No fallacies.	High: Polite.	Brief; partial engagement.
J.H.	Low: “Not worth answering.”	Low: No reasoning.	Medium: Dismissal.	Medium: Neutral.	Minimal; evasive.
B.H.	Low: Dismisses skeptics; lists “clearly defined” categories.	Low: Circular (Christianity provides what atheism can’t).	Low: Ad hominem (“hollow,” “trolling”).	Low: Condescending.	Defensive; uncivil.
J.W.	Medium: Suggests Greatest Commandment/Ten as standard.	Low: No elaboration on coherence.	High: No fallacies.	High: Polite.	Brief.
D.C.	Low: Notes disagreement doesn’t imply no truth.	Low: No specific moral defense.	Medium: Ad hominem on skepticism.	Medium: Sarcastic.	Minimal.
R.N.	Low: Attacks atheism; questions rationality.	Low: Unsubstantiated claims.	Low: Strawman on atheism.	Medium: Challenging but civil.	Off-topic; evasive.
C.G.	Low: Calls “receipt” on OP.	Low: No reasoning.	Medium: Dismissal.	Medium: Sarcastic.	Minimal.
J.P.	High: Outlines pillars of Christian morality.	Medium: Structured, but evades application.	Medium: Tu quoque (demands Phil’s framework).	Medium: Accusatory (“duck and dodge”).	Engaged initially; became evasive.
C.N.	Low: “Project your own evil.”	Low: No reasoning.	Low: Ad hominem.	Low: Insulting.	Minimal; uncivil.

Key Observations

P.S.’s Role: As initiator, P.S. maintains high standards, using evidence and inviting responses without fallacies or incivility. The discussion reveals more evasion than resolution from defenders, supporting the OP’s claim of incoherence.

Overall Trends: Most Christian interlocutors are relevant but low on logical coherence, often relying on Scripture/authority without addressing contradictions. Fallacies like circular reasoning, ad hominem, and no true Scotsman are common. Civility varies; some are polite, others dismissive/insulting.

Strong Performers: T.R., H.M., and A.H. score high across criteria for substantive, respectful engagement.

Weak Performers: J.C., B.H., and Si.S. are low due to evasion, fallacies, and uncivility.

PROMPT: Categorize the responses into meaningful categories, then provide a pie chart that clearly reflects the size of each category.

GROK: Categories of Responses

Based on the full discussion in the PDF, I identified and categorized the responses from interlocutors (excluding the original post by Phil Stilwell). Responses were grouped into the following meaningful categories based on their content, tone, and intent:

Defensive/Apologetic (59% – 50 responses): This dominant category includes responses that proactively safeguard Christian morality against the OP’s criticisms, often by reframing biblical contradictions as contextual or redemptive narratives rather than flaws. Interlocutors frequently draw on Scripture (e.g., distinguishing descriptive accounts of slavery or genocide from prescriptive commands), theological concepts like God’s sovereignty or the Holy Spirit’s guidance, and historical arguments (e.g., Christianity’s role in abolition). For instance, T.R. explains slavery as a “fallen world reality” not endorsed by God, emphasizing redemption over moral codification. Insightfully, these responses reveal a pattern of shifting focus from moral coherence to soteriology (salvation), which may evade the OP’s demand for an unambiguous system but demonstrates apologetics’ emphasis on faith-based resolution. This category underscores the group’s primary mode: protection of doctrine through interpretation, though it often circles back to assumptions of divine authority without empirical validation.
Challenging the OP (18% – 15 responses): Responses in this category directly interrogate the OP’s premises, evidence, or logic, seeking to undermine its foundation rather than defend Christianity outright. Common tactics include requesting sources (e.g., for surveys on Christian disagreements), critiquing methodological flaws (e.g., D.F.’s query on sample size), or pointing out perceived strawman arguments (e.g., T.R.’s rebuttal to circularity claims). For example, I.M. labels the OP a “scattergun approach” and demands substantiation. This category provides insight into intellectual engagement, showing a subset of participants who prioritize evidentiary rigor over dismissal, potentially fostering deeper debate. However, it sometimes overlaps with defensiveness, as challenges often pivot to counter-claims without conceding ground, highlighting a tension between skepticism toward the OP and unexamined acceptance of biblical claims.
Dismissive/Evasive (12% – 10 responses): These responses sidestep substantive engagement, often through outright rejection, redirection, or minimal acknowledgment of the OP’s points. Examples include labeling the critique as “trolling” (S.S.), advising to ignore it (J.P.), or using ad hominem implications (e.g., J.C.’s “fool” reference from Scripture). Insightfully, this category exposes underlying frustration or gatekeeping in apologetics groups, where complex questions are deflected to preserve group harmony or avoid cognitive dissonance. Evasion here, such as B.K.’s “not worth my time,” contrasts with the OP’s invitation for resolution, suggesting that some participants view such critiques as threats rather than opportunities for clarification, which may contribute to the perceived incoherence in Christian moral discourse.
Agreeing with OP/Challenging Defenders (6% – 5 responses): A minority category where responses align with the OP’s skepticism or push back against fellow defenders’ arguments, often highlighting internal inconsistencies among Christians. For instance, A.H. critiques C.H.’s historical contextualization by questioning God’s sovereignty in allowing “terrible circumstances,” while L.G. points out contradictions in divine judgment (e.g., genocide commands). This provides clear insight into dissent within the group, illustrating that not all participants adhere to a unified front; instead, it reveals fractures in moral interpretations, supporting the OP’s thesis on fragmentation. These responses add nuance, showing how even within a Christian apologetics context, empirical or logical critiques can resonate, potentially bridging toward more objective dialogue.
Minimal/Neutral (6% – 5 responses): This smallest category encompasses brief, non-committal replies like simple agreements (“agree” from R.P. or M.B.), amens, or neutral observations without advancing the discussion. For example, A.O.’s moderator-like suggestion to engage members directly. Insightfully, these reflect passive participation or lurking behavior in online forums, where users signal presence without investment. While neutral in tone, they contribute little to resolution, emphasizing the discussion’s polarization: substantive engagement is rare, and minimal input may indicate overwhelm or disinterest in resolving the core moral coherence issue raised by the OP.

The categorization is based on 85 approximate response posts (excluding Phil’s replies, as the focus is on interlocutors’ responses to the OP).

Pie Chart

The pie chart below reflects the relative size of each category based on the number of responses:

Defensive/Apologetic: 59% (50 responses)
Challenging the OP: 18% (15 responses)
Dismissive/Evasive: 12% (10 responses)
Agreeing with OP/Challenging Defenders: 6% (5 responses)
Minimal/Neutral: 6% (5 responses)

Here’s a textual representation of the pie chart (generated via code for visualization):

Distribution of Responses:

PROMPT: Provide a short essay that assesses whether any of the participants in this discussion provided a moral system that does not dissipate into raw obedience upon scrutiny.

GROK:

Assessing Coherence in Proposed Moral Systems: A Scrutiny of the Discussion

In the Christian Apologetics group discussion initiated by Phil Stilwell, participants were challenged to present a moral system that withstands scrutiny without reducing to blind obedience—defined here as unquestioning deference to divine authority without independent verification of its moral coherence. Stilwell’s core argument posits that Christian morality, ostensibly grounded in the Bible, Holy Spirit, and intuitions, fragments into contradictions and subjectivity. A review of the responses reveals that while several interlocutors attempted to articulate frameworks, none succeeded in offering a system that avoids dissolving into raw obedience. Instead, their proposals consistently circled back to God’s commands, nature, or revelation as the ultimate arbiter, rendering morality tautological and unverifiable.

T. R. provides one of the most detailed defenses, framing biblical morality as “absolute perfect holiness” rooted in God’s original design, with a singular rule: “do not try to be like God.” He distinguishes descriptive biblical accounts (e.g., slavery as a “fallen world reality”) from prescriptive norms like loving God and others. Yet, under scrutiny, this collapses: T. R.’s standard relies on God’s holiness as self-evident, without an external metric to confirm why divine commands (including troubling ones like genocide in 1 Samuel 15) are inherently moral. Disagreements among Christians on application further expose the subjectivity—obedience to an interpreted divine will, not a coherent calculus.

J. P. outlines a structured “Pillars of the Christian Moral System,” including metaphysical grounding in God’s nature, divine command theory, and virtue ethics. This appears sophisticated, emphasizing scripture, reason, and the Holy Spirit. However, it falters in practice: J. P.’s epistemology invokes “divine revelation for moral clarity,” making obedience to God’s sovereign will the normative core. When pressed to apply it to specific dilemmas (e.g., killing abortion doctors or remarriage after divorce), the system devolves into selective interpretation of God’s character, indistinguishable from blind deference. No independent test is provided to validate why God’s essence equates to objective good.

Other responses fare similarly. M. H. shifts to soteriology, arguing morality is futile without grace, as humans cannot uphold God’s law (e.g., Romans 3:23). This evades coherence by prioritizing forgiveness over a functional system—obedience through confession, not rational principles. J. E. posits the Ten Commandments as the “basic moral law,” “evolved” by Jesus’ fulfillment, but concedes contextual shifts (e.g., Levitical laws as non-moral). This admits mutability, undermining timelessness; morality becomes obedience to a progressing divine plan. S. S. echoes this, viewing the Commandments as a standard we fail, necessitating a savior—again, faith-based obedience over verifiable ethics.

Even non-Christian sympathizer A. H. critiques blind obedience by citing Abraham’s negotiation with God over Sodom, suggesting reasoned dialogue. However, this still roots morality in divine interaction—obedience, albeit dialogic, to a God whose responses remain authoritative without external justification.

Ultimately, no participant escaped the pitfall Stilwell highlighted. Each system, when scrutinized, dissipated into raw obedience: God’s will as the unchallengeable foundation, circularly assumed moral because it emanates from God. This fragmentation—evident in historical and modern Christian divergences—confirms the absence of a truly coherent, non-subjective moral framework in the discussion.

Companion Spotify Episode

Thanks for another interesting piece (as usual). I might add that even the “flying” fortress theologians have tried to build…

Good insights! “William Philosophers” definitely refers to William of Ockham.

Given that I read a collection of Russell’s works on religion a few years ago, the reference to the teapot…

Alright, thanks for the insights. While I’ve read works on ethics and ethical theories (including some of Immanuel Kant’s more…

Hi J, I’m a moral non-realist. I hold that there are no legitimate moral obligations since a moral realm has…

Hi Phil: Apologies if this isn’t really related to skepticism, but I was wondering: What are your thoughts on the…

Has Juan considered the problems with divine command theory and could he address the following?: a.) What makes Christian versions…

Juan has been blocked. I ran out of both daylight and patience.A debriefing has been added above in the light…

Check the new formalization section in grey above. Fourty minutes.

Phil, an hour to “get honest” about what exactly? I pointed out the contradiction between your self-identification as a moral…