# Creationism: Why not call a spade a spade? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 5, 2013, 11:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065 "2013-09-05T11:44:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Intrinsicvalue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/57b2e6/32.png) [@Intrinsicvalue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Intrinsicvalue)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2013, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/201 "2013-09-12T00:16:47Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > **tomndebb** and others have already given you some helpful corrective feedback on this assertion, but I have a little to add too. > > If your position is that torturing children is universally morally prohibited, you’re not starting your argument off very well at all. > > If there is some external force that makes the torture of children morally unacceptable, why has the acceptability of the torture of children varied over time and over contexts? > > It wasn’t until the 17th century and the emergence of social conscience that our beliefs about children included the idea that they were emotionally sensitive beings who should be afforded individual rights. John Locke helped to usher in a transition from treating children with indifference or harshly. > > The fact that we see historical transitions regarding the morality of how children are treated argues for such morality arising from humans rather than being imposed supernaturally. > > Additionally, if your point includes the idea that our religions are a conduit for recognizing and interpreting moral prescriptions, then the story of God wiping out Job’s kids or, more intimately, telling Abraham to kill his son, argue against any biblical support for your objective morality regarding the treatment of children. > > The torture of children during the inquisition, and even the stereotypical beating of Catholic school children with rulers and other implements also question any sort of religious source for a moral prohibition against the torture of children. > > You may have thought you had come up with an example that demonstrated a morality we would all agree with, and it is hard for us, here and now, living in the culture that we do, to contend otherwise. But it isn’t a good example of an unchanging or universal morality. > > Care to try again? Actually you seem to be ascribing to me positions I haven’t taken. I have not asserted that religion necessarily plays any role in the consciousness or proliferation of morality. I am speaking to its source as being outside of the natural world. Nothing more, nothing less. However, am I correct in reading into your post an acceptance that torturing children is morally wrong? If so, how do you form this view rationally, and on what basis do you deem those of the past who thought other wise, wrong? Finally your view of history is not entirely accurate. Children have been badly treated at times throughout history, but so have Jews, people of colour, Christians, the mentally ill, etc etc. But we can see in many civilisations that children were educated, supported in extended family units, fed, nurtured etc etc. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2013, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/202 "2013-09-12T00:42:27Z")
**Intrinsicvalue** , do you have any verifiable evidence that points towards the existence of a supernatural world? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2013, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/203 "2013-09-12T00:52:22Z")
> [@Intrinsicvalue](#): > > I know what Naturalism is. If something is evident in the world that cannot be explained by naturalism, then it is worthy of further investigation. Indeed is suggestive of naturalism being wanting. I have put out the challenge about objective morality, but from what I can see there is more evasion in the responses than in a general election. You may or may not know what naturalism is. Nothing you have posted indicates that you do. Further, you made an assertion regarding naturalism that you have failed to support by any citation from any text on or description of naturalism. That behavior is unpersuasive of your position. Similarly, you have asserted an “objective morality,” but you have not provided a reason for anyone outside yourself to accept your claim. (Actually, you have failed to even provide a definition of “objective morality” and you certainly have not provided any context for a logical discussion of that idea. A plea for recognition for a single example that would generally be accepted by your current audience in this culture in this era simply fails to make your point.) If you want to persuade others to your point of view, you really need to step up your game. One aphorism that gets quoted round here with a certain regularity is that a gratuitous assertion may be gratuitously denied. Your assertion regarding objective morality is one. Your claim regarding naturalism is another. From the perspective of your audience, you are the one being evasive. If you cannot provide something more substantive for your beliefs than that you believe them, you are going to fail to persuade anyone of your position. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2013, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/204 "2013-09-12T03:06:14Z")
> [@Intrinsicvalue](#): > > Actually you seem to be ascribing to me positions I haven’t taken. > > I have not asserted that religion necessarily plays any role in the consciousness or proliferation of morality. I am speaking to its source as being outside of the natural world. Nothing more, nothing less. The word “if” is an important word to be able to identify by sight. > [@](#): > > However, am I correct in reading into your post an acceptance that torturing children is morally wrong? If so, how do you form this view rationally, and on what basis do you deem those of the past who thought other wise, wrong? What do you mean rationally? My morality is a.function of my individual neurological function and the environment in which I live. I evaluate past and present other moral beliefs as right or wrong from my perspective and my belief that I am right. If morality was the result of an external agent, not only would we have to figure out why we observe secular fluctuation in morality (as we have been talking about re: treatment of children), we would also be stuck trying to explain intraindividual development change in morality, as well as cross-cultural variability in morality. It is a fickle, inconsistent and arbitrary agent, this morality-imbuer you imagine. > [@](#): > > Finally your view of history is not entirely accurate. Children have been badly treated at times throughout history, but so have Jews, people of colour, Christians, the mentally ill, etc etc. But we can see in many civilisations that children were educated, supported in extended family units, fed, nurtured etc etc. Please state for me which culture or cultures it is that has treated children in the samefashion consistently, from say the 1600s to the present day. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2013, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/205 "2013-09-12T04:51:06Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Fine- there’s no objective morality… morality is a human concept, and any moral system requires certain assumptions. There is also the role of our animal origins as a social species in our instinctive moral structure. We have instincts that impel us toward protecting children; it hurts us to see children being harmed. We encode this feeling in our laws, but part of it, at least, derives from our instincts. The same is true for cooperation, trust, honesty, sharing, mercy, and a number of other moral values: they originate, in part, from our animal instincts, and this is part of why we enshrine them in our moral systems. > [@](#): > > And even if something is found that has not yet been explained naturalistically, that does not mean that there is a supernatural explanation. There’s many mysteries out there, but fewer each day. The “blank spots on the map” metaphor of knowledge. There are fewer and fewer places where dragons might lurk. Those of us who were born before the space age knew an earth that actually and literally had unmapped places. Now, with satellite scanning, there aren’t any (meaningfully large) unmapped areas of the earth’s land surface (and, in fact, relatively few of the sea floors, either!) 100 years ago, the idea of “Bigfoot” wasn’t completely nonsensical. But, today, enough of the North American north-west has been explored to make the idea much less supportable. We can never “know everything,” but we can exhaust certain kinds of knowledge. They’ve calculated pi to 10 trillion decimal places! Even God couldn’t have used more than a few hundred! ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2013, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/206 "2013-09-12T05:36:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > There is nothing either in the theory of evolution, nor in any observed phenomenon, that would falsify the claim that God created the universe with a set of ordered laws and knew that the inevitable result of those ordered laws would inevitably produce the results that we see before us today. Granted, such an assumption isn’t _required_ by evolution; neither, though, is it _inconsistent_ with evolution. > > But you disagree. So please post a citation to the tenet(s) of evolution that you contend are inconsistent with God creating the entire universe and all the physical laws therein, and knowing as He did so that this would be the result. The universe is too chaotic for any set of laws to inevitably produce humans. Now, the proposition that God invisibly and undetectably modified the outcome of random events to produce humans is unfalsifiable and a lot more defensible than your assertion. And it has the same outcome. Why would you want to claim that God never interfered when God clearly interfered by producing Jesus? ---
**Author:** ![Intrinsicvalue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/57b2e6/32.png) [@Intrinsicvalue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Intrinsicvalue)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2013, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/207 "2013-09-12T05:44:50Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > **Intrinsicvalue** , do you have any verifiable evidence that points towards the existence of a supernatural world? Yes. And I have been trying to present that in my position on morality, but you won’t engage. ---
**Author:** ![Intrinsicvalue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/57b2e6/32.png) [@Intrinsicvalue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Intrinsicvalue)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2013, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/208 "2013-09-12T05:53:56Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > You may or may not know what naturalism is. Nothing you have posted indicates that you do. Further, you made an assertion regarding naturalism that you have failed to support by any citation from any text on or description of naturalism. That behavior is unpersuasive of your position. > > Similarly, you have asserted an “objective morality,” but you have not provided a reason for anyone outside yourself to accept your claim. (Actually, you have failed to even provide a definition of “objective morality” and you certainly have not provided any context for a logical discussion of that idea. A plea for recognition for a single example that would generally be accepted by your current audience in this culture in this era simply fails to make your point.) > > If you want to persuade others to your point of view, you really need to step up your game. One aphorism that gets quoted round here with a certain regularity is that a gratuitous assertion may be gratuitously denied. Your assertion regarding objective morality is one. Your claim regarding naturalism is another > > From the perspective of your audience, you are the one being evasive. > If you cannot provide something more substantive for your beliefs than that you believe them, you are going to fail to persuade anyone of your position. You seem to be working to a double standard. On one hand you seem to require me to not only provide a pointer evidence but also to paraphrase that for you, whereas when I call someone out on their not engaging on morality (in fact running way) then you don;t like it. Well tough. If people are here for genuine dialogue they can extend themselves beyond a few seconds of viewing a clip or doing a google search to actually seek for truth. Now, to some specifics. Naturalism is, in it’s simplest form, the proposition that the natural world is a closed system, more so that nothing exists outside of the natural world, and that the answers to origins lie entirely within the natural world. At some point I recall I was asked to demonstrate that, and I began with morality. I asked a simple question. In a purely naturalistic world, why is the torture of an innocent child morally wrong. I am still waiting. ---
**Author:** ![Intrinsicvalue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/57b2e6/32.png) [@Intrinsicvalue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Intrinsicvalue)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2013, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/209 "2013-09-12T06:03:28Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > What do you mean rationally? My morality is a.function of my individual neurological function and the environment in which I live. I evaluate past and present other moral beliefs as right or wrong from my perspective and my belief that I am right. And so by that mechanism child torture will be morally permissable if yur neurological function and environment, coupled with your ‘belief’ (whatever that means) say so. > [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > morality was the result of an external agent, not only would we have to figure out why we observe secular fluctuation in morality (as we have been talking about re: treatment of children), we would also be stuck trying to explain intraindividual development change in morality, as well as cross-cultural variability in morality. It is a fickle, inconsistent and arbitrary agent, this morality-imbuer you imagine.Please state for me which culture or cultures it is that has treated children in the samefashion consistently, from say the 1600s to the present day. I didn’t claim that (sigh). The claim I was responding to was that we somehow live in an enlightened age and prior to this age we treated children like crap. That is nonsense. The ancient Egyptians educated their children, raised and nurtured them in extended families similar to many cultures today, recognised and affirmed their intellectual and physical attributes, and yes some sold them as slaves. The agent of morality is neither fickle, arbitrary or inconsistent, although humans are. Yet whatever your neurons or your ‘beliefs’ may tell you, there are certain actions that throughout history have troubled sane human beings consistently, irrespective of time or culture. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2013, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/210 "2013-09-12T06:59:17Z")
> [@Intrinsicvalue](#): > > And so by that mechanism child torture will be morally permissable if yur neurological function and environment, coupled with your ‘belief’ (whatever that means) say so. The alternative (absolute objective morality) is that torturing children is bad because it ‘just is’. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2013, 9:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/211 "2013-09-12T09:11:07Z")
> [@Intrinsicvalue](#): > > At some point I recall I was asked to demonstrate that, and I began with morality. I asked a simple question. In a purely naturalistic world, why is the torture of an innocent child morally wrong. I am still waiting. This has been answered multiple times, including by me. ---
**Author:** ![Intrinsicvalue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/57b2e6/32.png) [@Intrinsicvalue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Intrinsicvalue)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2013, 9:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/212 "2013-09-12T09:37:58Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > The alternative (absolute objective morality) is that torturing children is bad because it ‘just is’. No. Objective morality suggests that something outside of a purely naturalistic universe exists. ---
**Author:** ![Intrinsicvalue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/57b2e6/32.png) [@Intrinsicvalue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Intrinsicvalue)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2013, 9:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/213 "2013-09-12T09:39:02Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > This has been answered multiple times, including by me. Ah. The old, ‘don’t answer but claim I have’ trick. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2013, 10:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/214 "2013-09-12T10:06:30Z")
> [@Intrinsicvalue](#): > > You seem to be working to a double standard. Says the person whose approach seems to be “I assert things and demand you prove me wrong, and while you’re at it please do all my homework for me” and also who denounces anyone using the most common definition of “creationism” while creating a strawman about “naturalism”. > [@](#): > > At some point I recall I was asked to demonstrate that, and I began with morality. I asked a simple question. In a purely naturalistic world, why is the torture of an innocent child morally wrong. I am still waiting. I’m not entirely sure what morality has to do with evolution or creationism, other than to produce a distraction from the repeated questions about science and requests for evidence. The existence of morality only requires imposition by an external force if you start from the premise that morality cannot exist without that external force. Which is begging the question. Of course, there are people who think that the torture of an innocent child is morally correct. Some of them are called [Christians](http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/torture-of-african-children-for-being-witches-is-spreading-7880442.html) while many others are [Muslim](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation). Strangely, it’s much rarer for the non-religious to claim moral correctness for child torture. Of course, the majority of Christians and Muslims and other believers are against such practices but it does suggest that morality is not remotely objective, nor that it is derived from faith or divine inspiration. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2013, 10:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/215 "2013-09-12T10:09:16Z")
> [@Intrinsicvalue](#): > > No. Objective morality suggests that something outside of a purely naturalistic universe exists. 1. Objective morality doesn’t exist, and 2) even if it did, your conclusion does not necessarily follow. > [@Intrinsicvalue](#): > > Ah. The old, ‘don’t answer but claim I have’ trick. Ah, the old “I’m pretending not to see the answers that I didn’t like” trick. You want people to watch YouTube videos to support your points, but you won’t even read the thread you’re posting in? Now who has a closed mind? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2013, 10:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/216 "2013-09-12T10:39:23Z")
> [@Intrinsicvalue](#): > > No. Objective morality suggests that something outside of a purely naturalistic universe exists. OK, and where does it derive its properties. How, within this external environment, is it determined that torturing children is bad? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2013, 10:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/217 "2013-09-12T10:39:53Z")
> [@Intrinsicvalue](#): > > You seem to be working to a double standard. On one hand you seem to require me to not only provide a pointer evidence but also to paraphrase that for you, whereas when I call someone out on their not engaging on morality (in fact running way) then you don;t like it. Well tough. If people are here for genuine dialogue they can extend themselves beyond a few seconds of viewing a clip or doing a google search to actually seek for truth. > > Now, to some specifics. Naturalism is, in it’s simplest form, the proposition that the natural world is a closed system, more so that nothing exists outside of the natural world, and that the answers to origins lie entirely within the natural world. > > At some point I recall I was asked to demonstrate that, and I began with morality. I asked a simple question. In a purely naturalistic world, why is the torture of an innocent child morally wrong. I am still waiting. I am sure that you believe that you are making some point, but you are really failing in your effort. Your “objective morality” assertion and “child torture” question were the result of a secondary exchange that appeared to have moved away from your blanket (and unsupported) assertions regarding naturalism and did not appear to be connected in the way that they appeared in the thread. _::: shrug :::_ However, considering your attempt: There are any number of reasons, in a naturalist world, where the torture of any person would be considered wrong. Society lives by rules that develop within the society to ensure further cooperation among its citizens. Over time, those rules develop patterns, among them, taboos on inflicting harm on those who cannot defend themselves. By establishing a taboo against the defenseless, society sets boundaries by which reckless violence is restrained, making the overall society more successful. As the clearest example of the defenseless, we have children, so they come under such taboos with the strongest emphasis. (That is why so many societies do not have prohibitions against harming children: they have not developed to the point of that level of intra-societal protection.) The problem with your attempt to attack (your version of) naturalism, is that you have asserted that an objective morilty exists, but you have failed to demonstrate that it does. With your posts, we are back to gratuitously denying a gratuitous assertion. Let’s review your “case.” - You assert that there is an objective morality. - When challenged that there is not one, you point to your own belief that harming children is objectively morally wrong. - When it is pointed out that there are societies in which harming children in various ways has not been penalized, you simply shrug off such evidence and go back to asserting your “truth.” Where is the evidence for your claim? Why should we accept your assertion since you have made no effort to demonstrate that it is true? Why should your personal opinion carry any weight in the discussion? There are any number of reasons why a society would develop a taboo against harming children. I have provided one. The fact that many societies have failed to develop the same taboo is strong evidence that your “objective morality” does not exist. So, where is your evidence? No one is “running away.” We are simply waiting for you to hold up your end of the discussion. ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2013, 11:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/218 "2013-09-12T11:19:13Z")
“Naturalistic” reasons that the torture of children is a bad thing? Okay. It is uneconomical. The time and energy expended in torturing children would be better spent hunting, gathering, or building shelter. It is unproductive. Torture is pain applied for a goal. Children are not likely to know anything that will help your warriors defeat the enemy, nor will their warriors be demoralized by our torturing of their children. Now, the public torture and humiliation of one of their champions is a different situation, but you were specifically asking about children. It is anti-survival. Peoples who torture their own children tend to have fewer descendants. Peoples who torture their enemies’ children gain more enemies. Peoples who torture their servants’ or slaves’ children have untrustworthy retainers. I have trouble envisioning a “naturalistic” scenario that would promote the torture of children. It seems to me that a culture which can entertain the idea of torturing children (on a regular basis, I am for this exercise ignoring outliers and individual actors) must do so based on religious or political teaching, and so be at the stage of development where a ‘state’ can dictate behavior that is counter to the naturally evolves social codes of our species. Finally, “child torture” is a strawman. It does not follow that a very common tendency to take care of our children means this was imposed upon humans by some outside agent, especially as we observe analogous behaviors in most other social species of mammals and birds. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2013, 11:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/219 "2013-09-12T11:24:21Z")
> [@Intrinsicvalue](#): > > Ah. The old, ‘don’t answer but claim I have’ trick. Except that I have, helpfully quoted below. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Because it causes suffering, and we (you and me, or other humans) believe causing suffering is wrong, except in certain circumstances (medical procedures, self-defense, etc). We may come to that conclusion differently, but we both believe it is wrong. > > Even a God-defined morality is not “objective”- if something is wrong just because God says so, then torturing a child could be right or wrong depending on God’s whims. And if torturing a child is wrong no matter what God says, then God is irrelevant to morality. Care to engage, or do you just want to keep pretending everyone is trying to evade your question? Seriously, do you really think we haven’t heard that objective morality stuff a thousand times before? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2013, 11:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065/220 "2013-09-12T11:55:46Z")
If morailty _is_ objectively handed down, how on earth would we then decide whether or not to accept it? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-why-not-call-a-spade-a-spade/668065.md?page=12)