Let me say first how glad I am to be participating in this endevour with Matt Bohlman. In my experiences in both the academic community and my religious one I have found that there was always dogmatism, defensiveness, pride and perhaps most dangerous, a cynicism towards the potential of dialogue amidst whatever else was going on. In the short time I have known Matt I have found him to be an exception to this rule. His positions have been very well thought out and he has been open minded, he has been sure on where he stands, and honest about where he might be vulnerable to criticism.

This makes him an ideal canditate for this present debate on the nature and ultimate source of morality, which is a most difficult of philosophical topics, dependant both upon intellectual and moral intuitions as much as any logical argument. This debate was inspired in part by the debate on the same subject between William Lane Craig and Rishard Taylor, which can be found at: "http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-taylor0.html"
and could provide a useful background to the debate that will follow, though the two are sure to differ significantly.

This is partially because, and I will here state not only my position, but even some of my motivations, for me this debate is almost a front for another debate that I feel can be discussed most reasonably indirectly. Matt Bohlman and I are both commited Christians, however I will be presenting a Christian position that is rarely presented as an "official" Christian position. This position is actually a sort of anti-apologetical one, and with this in mind, I will let certain Christian assumptions, that Matt and I may or may not share, go unquestioned and focus my criticisms on the points that I think are key areas where we ought to rethink our stand as Christians if we wish to take on and live out the nature of Christ.

I hope that with an intellect functioning as God made it to function, and a heart motivated with the spirit of Christ, to work towards a project best summed up by Karl Marx, who admitted that if we were able to finally tear down the human edifice of religion, that there we might finally see the reality of the divine that was so hidden underneath. This is the reality I think we might be able to expose if we were able to do away with the constructs of human reason that we use to convince ourselves that what we have made with human will and work are truly the church of God. Just as in Jesus's day, perhaps we need to leave our religion behind in order to find God.

I will quickly show my own insecurity in my position by offering up a defense even for the defense of it. I believe Christians spend too much energy in trying to prove that they are right, when God has called us to submit to His authority through acts of sacrifice, himility and love. Some might say, and I have at times been among them, that to engage in the debate, to pick a side at all, is only to encourage that which I claim to oppose.

And yet, I fear that if we do not address this crutch of human apologetics, it will always be there behind us whether we talk about it or not. At best it will be there as a solid rock of human reason, irrelevant and unoticed until we are pushed and find we have our backs up against it backs up against it, and take from it a kind of self-confidence that the foolishness of God's love could never give us. At worst it could be an object to which we silently give our spiritual confidence and which gives nothing back.

This is the position that I will be presenting. The alternative, whatever Matt may suggest that is, has seemed attractive to me in the lives of several people I know and respect, and I have heard it being worked out by Matt in an intellectually palatable way, which I hope will make for an interesting and well thought out discussion. I am not already decided, and have admitted to Matt already at least two areas in which I feel that apologetics has a good point, but I also chose the current topic as one that has seemed like a sure contest for my opponents position, but that I now intend to try to bring at least to a draw (unfortunately for those with a most keen interest in the debate on the current topic, my background interest is best served by the result of a draw, but I will try to present my position as well as possible regardless).

So I hope that the debate will prove eternally fuitfull, and more then an intellectual exercise. I certainly hope that my position will change, and be improved in the process, and that it will be an edifying experience for both of us.