RE: Lessons from evolutionary biology for Christians and Atheists alike.

This is why moral relativism does not work – even in a world without a god. We can disagree on which are the moral poisons, and which are the moral salves; but ultimately experience and consequences win out.

Yet you are actively participating in moral relativism apparently unknowingly. Furthermore, your conclusion seems to be false. The experiences and consequences can (and do) change over time based on what is happening at any given point in history. This means that without objective moral reality you have nothing but moral relativism left which is uncomfortable and the reason people try to find a way out of it. I gave an example of this in my last...if human existence is at stake the "right" thing to do could be defended as copulate with young females against their wills for "the greater good"...or even for the individual's good (more labor, companionship, protection from predators, etc.).

As to objective values created by a god, I’m sorry, but this is no different from a world without a god. Example:

God says you may not eat the left rear leg of a frog, otherwise you will be condemned to hell. Okay, a pretty clear instruction. Don’t eat rear left frog legs. He’s god, so no one can have a different opinion. Therefore, it’s an objective value, right? No. At least not in a way that conflicts with my explanation above. Here’s why: you as a subject want to “live” – and in the extended god narrative, your soul will continue to live for eternity after you die – so you want to live in the good place rather than the bad place. THAT is your value. Refusing to eat left rear frog legs is your objective MEANS of achieving your subjective end.

There are at least two misunderstandings here. First, we are not talking about "rules" God may lay out in order to protect us from something (even if we are unsure what that something is), or rules He creates in order to make a point, or to unfold his ultimate plan. What I am speaking of are the values that exist simply because God exists. These values are part of his character and flow from Him. He is the source of these ultimate "Forms". These would be things such as murder is wrong, adultery is wrong, lying is wrong, self sacrifice is right, forgiveness is right, etc. Why because God is Life, Fidelity, Truth, etc. He is Being from whom these values flow simply because He exists. The circumstances of our lives do not change these things.

Second, you are also assuming that the purpose of believing in God is to continue living and to do so in the "good" place. I would argue that the purpose of believing in God i.e. the purpose of our existence is to bring glory to Him because He is the only person who, by definition, deserves it.

The reason I continue to insist that you have no meaning is because you have no ultimate meaning. Your meaning is subjective, relative, and temporal. This makes it hollow and unnecessary to anyone for any reason that matters beyond the time our planet ceases to support life, and certainly by the time our universe dies. Values, meaning, truth, everything constructed (including consciousness) by an apathetic universe are structures of energy and matter that will cease to exist. You could solve every "problem" humanity has, and it will ultimately have as much meaning as if you do not solve said problems. Let me be clear, this could be the case. Perhaps I am wrong and God does not exist, however, if I came to that conclusion I would not play the game of meaning. I find it intellectually inconsistent and disingenuous.

Either we have a purpose for being here that transcends our understanding, or we are energy/matter machines that exist and then cease to exist. If the later is true you and I are not even having a "conversation" as we "see" it. We are simply unfolding energy/matter that is predetermined to unfold this way and we could just as easily have been a rock...and would have the same value as said rock.

If you are right, neither of us will ever know. If I am right, we will both know at some point. If neither of us is right we may find ourselves reincarnated as birds on another planet in another dimension.

I will let you go back to the beginning of the circle one more time, and then maybe we should call it quits until another time? I promise that is nothing personal. I enjoyed the interaction, I just do not want to spend the next two weeks restating our views to each other :)

"or we are energy/matter machines that exist and then cease to exist. If the later is true you and I are not even having a "conversation" as we "see" it. We are simply unfolding energy/matter that is predetermined to unfold this way" - I agree with this. However, I don't see why this therefore means this conversation does not have "meaning". :) (Also, I would suggest that here your use of "meaning" does not equal "value", and you may be confusing things a bit through the switch.)

I don't know what to tell you. It doesn't seem like there's a way to bridge the distance between us on these points.

One obstacle is that we have another conflict in our definitions: When I talk about "moral relativism", I am talking about morals; when you talk about moral relativism, you are talking about values. (And I realize that the majority of people equate the two.) Morals, from my perspective, are rules or guidelines we follow in order to achieve value. Therefore, morals are objective, while value remains subjective (for all the reasons I previously stated). Just as, if you want to live, it is moral to avoid drinking arsenic; so also, if you want to live in a stable and safe society where your life is respected, you do not murder. A criminal's choice to murder does not overturn the objective moral that disallows it.

Anyway, I enjoyed the conversation as well. And I totally understand if you don't want to keep going round and round. (Though I do think it is possible to overcome the circle once the definition of terms and ideas are fully fleshed out. Even if we fail to agree on an answer, we would at least clearly see why.)