Who are the convincing champions of the faith?

Kings Inns or bust

Cards on the table here, I was fairly agnostic until I started formally studying Jurisprudence. I've found myself being drawn more and more to people like Hitchens and Dawkins. For the sake of balance who are the celebrity thinkers of the Christian faith, who can I watch/read to see the other point of view?

I've studied Finnis but from the point of view of natural law which I personally believe can be engaged on a completely secular level. Is there anyone accessible that can challenge that assertion?

Thanks in advance for any suggestions!

uck51js9zml2yt

There's two guys I'd recommend.
One was a carpenter and the other a tailor.
They were called Jesus and Paul . They said some fairly deep stuff that was and is ground breaking.

Kings Inns or bust

Nadia Gorgeous Bathtub wrote: »

There's two guys I'd recommend.
One was a carpenter and the other a tailor.
They were called Jesus and Paul . They said some fairly deep stuff that was and is ground breaking.

Sorry I should clarify I'm looking for contemporary scholars, perhaps going back as far as Bentham's era. While the Bible has value within it's own right, certainly as a work of literature, I'm looking for a modern argument.

uck51js9zml2yt

Kings Inns or bust wrote: »

Sorry I should clarify I'm looking for contemporary scholars, perhaps going back as far as Bentham's era. While the Bible has value within it's own right, certainly as a work of literature, I'm looking for a modern argument.

They broke all the rules and still do. If you want to put the Bible in the same category as Wuthering Heights you need to re evaluate your position.

Kings Inns or bust

Nadia Gorgeous Bathtub wrote: »

They broke all the rules and still do. If you want to put the Bible in the same category as Wuthering Heights you need to re evaluate your position.

Well, perhaps that's what I would like to at least hear the argument for. If you're not willing to forward the information of the leading contemporary scholars in that area please leave it to people who are willing to do so. I did not come here to preach or be preached to.

uck51js9zml2yt

Kings Inns or bust wrote: »

Well, perhaps that's what I would like to at least hear the argument for. If you're not willing to forward the information of the leading contemporary scholars in that area please leave it to people who are willing to do so. I did not come here to preach or be preached to.

It really depends which side of the argument you want when looking at the so called scholars.
Some of the most well known (eg Carson) have in recent years started to rewrite 2000 years of Christian beliefs and rewrite what Paul wrote in relation to justification by faith.
As with everything, it depends on which side of the argument you stand.

Kings Inns or bust

Nadia Gorgeous Bathtub wrote: »

It really depends which side of the argument you want when looking at the so called scholars.
Some of the most well known (eg Carson) have in recent years started to rewrite 2000 years of Christian beliefs and rewrite what Paul wrote in relation to justification by faith.
As with everything, it depends on which side of the argument you stand.

I've made it quite clear in the OP on which side of the argument I stand. For the sake of better understanding I wish to hear the arguments of the other side, ideally the best arguments. Perhaps I'm being lazy and looking for a quick fix, I'm perfectly willing to accept that criticism - the subject matter is one of passing importance. Nevertheless without getting too far into the whys and wherefores I simply require a pointer.

As I've said I'm not here to preach or discuss, certainly without hearing the arguments. My mind remains somewhat open at the moment.

Manach

From a natural law point of view,AFAIR Fennis had made a good argument on the various core characteristics that made up a basic natural law argument as being universal to the human condition so I could not better his approach. Though while I've had a nodding respect for the arguments presented (taken from the undergrad jurisprudence) I'm world-weary enough to be more inclined to the Law and Economic theories as set forward by Posner.

However in direct answer to the OP, I'd recommend the book "After the Natural Law" by John Hill which I'm slowly reading through - the first two chapters set the stage with various notions of Greek thought and the latter sections discuss how various Church philosophers such as Aquinas meld these with doctrine into a foundation of natural law.

Hope this helps.

Kings Inns or bust

Exceptionally helpful, thank you!

gillad

I have a different view from most religions of what god is but i believe it is the same thing/being that jesus was connected so strongly too which allowed him to do those miraculous deeds like coming back from the dead....how did he do that???
If you want a different view then check out Amit Goswami,a quantum physicist.
"God is not dead" is one of his books that may interest you.here is an introduction to this book

Move over, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens--a highly regarded nuclear physicist enters the debate about the existence of God--and comes down on the side of the angels. Goswami's hypothesis is that quantum physics holds the key to all the unsolved mysteries of biology--the nature and origin of life, fossil gaps of evolution, why evolution proceeds from simple to complex, and why biological beings have feeling and consciousness.

In God is Not Dead, Goswami moves beyond theory and shows how a God-based science puts ethics and values where it belongs: at the center of our lives and societies. He provides a scientific model that steers between scientific materialism and religious fundamentalism; a model that has implications for how we live both individually and collectively.

God is Not Dead is a fascinating tour of quantum physics, consciousness, and the existence and experience of God.

Kings Inns or bust

Many Thanks, a different view which I shall definitely take a look at. I wonder if Goswami main thrust is somewhat Spinozian. It may take me quite some time but if you'd oblige me in remaining subscribed to the thread I would certainly welcome a discussion on Goswami.

Speedwell

You can't actually get from "science says" to "therefore God" without redefining "God" into uselessness, much less from "science says" to Christianity. You wind up with things like Spinozism, which I respect and somewhat identify with, but I'm a frank atheist of the strong variety, which gives you some idea how weak Spinozism is as a defense of theism. Within Hinduism itself you have atheist (but surprisingly not heretical) traditions such as the historical Cārvāka, and even other forms of modern atheist thinking. Perhaps the balance the OP is seeking could be found approximately here.

Peregrinus

Kings Inns or bust wrote: »

I've made it quite clear in the OP on which side of the argument I stand. For the sake of better understanding I wish to hear the arguments of the other side, ideally the best arguments. Perhaps I'm being lazy and looking for a quick fix, I'm perfectly willing to accept that criticism - the subject matter is one of passing importance. Nevertheless without getting too far into the whys and wherefores I simply require a pointer.

As I've said I'm not here to preach or discuss, certainly without hearing the arguments. My mind remains somewhat open at the moment.

If you're looking for a takedown of Dawkins and Hitchens specifically, you could try Terry Eagleton. Eagleton's not actually a believer, but he has a lot more respect for religion than either Dawkins or Hitchens, and he finds their criticisms of it incredible shallow and ignorant, and he explains why. He also writes very well, so it might be worth a read.

He doesn't have much to say about natural law theory, though, if that's your particular interest. At the risk of summarising Eagleton badly and unfairly, his main argument is an expansion of Speedwell's point:

Speedwell wrote: »

You can't actually get from "science says" to "therefore God" without redefining "God" into uselessness . . .

The corollary of Speedwell's point is that you equally can't get from "science says" to "therefore not God" (or "therefore probably not God") without a similarly tendentious and simplistic definition of "God", and this is basically what he things Dawkins and Hitchens are doing.

Speedwell

I haven't read Eagleton and I am not trying to derail the thread into yet another iteration of "does God exist" (which is not within the scope of the topic anyway). But as the OP requested "convincing champions" I should really point out that it is simply necessary to prove that a given God-concept is self-contradictory (this is true of the God of both the Old and New Testaments) to remove it from consideration. God concepts need to be free of self-contradiction. It is also sufficient to show that a given God-concept is at variance with reality; a trivial example is "he who makes two plus two equal eleven", or, less trivially and more to the point, the idea that God (again, usually the God of the Bible) is simultaneously "omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, omnipotent". Logic and science are capable of this. In essence, there first has to be a "religion asserts that God is" before you can even get to "but logic/science say" and subsequently "therefore not God".

At this point the argument usually devolves into the assertion that you can't prove a negative (which is correct only for certain kinds of arguments and a fallacy for most others), or that you have to prove all God-concepts false before you can be a "real" atheist. Actually you don't; you merely have to address all concepts as they approach, and either reserve judgment on all the others (weak atheism) or point out that no known God-concept stands up to proper scrutiny, despite a concerted effort on the part of the entire human race for millennia to devise or discover one, therefore the probability is remote to nil that one will ever be devised or discovered (strong atheism).

Alternately, I've seen it pointed out at this stage that science is of the natural and has nothing to say to the supernatural, to which I say that as soon as the supernatural interacts with the natural, the way in which it interacts with the natural comes within the purview of science. We, being natural, can have nothing to say about the supernatural until that happens, anyway, and there is no convincing evidence it ever has. If such evidence is found, it is in the writings of the people who examine it that the OP will find the scholarly discussion being requested.

johnnyskeleton

Kings Inns or bust wrote: »

Cards on the table here, I was fairly agnostic until I started formally studying Jurisprudence. I've found myself being drawn more and more to people like Hitchens and Dawkins. For the sake of balance who are the celebrity thinkers of the Christian faith, who can I watch/read to see the other point of view?

If you like Christopher Hitchens and want to read the counter argument, why not read Peter Hitchens' The Rage Against God. Basicallyabout how he went from being an atheist left wing young man into a conservative christian middle aged man.

I've studied Finnis but from the point of view of natural law which I personally believe can be engaged on a completely secular level. Is there anyone accessible that can challenge that assertion?

Thomas Aquinas maybe?

Speedwell

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Thomas Aquinas maybe?

That's actually the point at which the companion thread starts. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057642503

Peregrinus

I think this does come back to Eagleton, actually. He points out that, even to ask for "evidence" that the supernatural has interacted with the natural is to frame the question in a way that presupposes the truth of the position for which you are arguing and, since you invoke logic, you know what logic would have to say about that.

The natural doesn't logically have to exist at all. We can easily imagine a state of affairs in which nothing ever existed. So why does it exist, as opposed to not existing? From the point of view of a believer, the natural exists because of God. When we observe that the natural does exist, we are looking right there at evidence of God's interaction with the natural. It's all around it. We're sitting in it. We are it.

From the point of view of the scientist, of course, nothing has been proven. There could be alternative accounts of the existence of the natural; we have postulated God as the reason, but we haven't proven him, as opposed to any alternative account.

But, the demand for further evidence to prove God as the reason for existence assumes that God is capable of empirical observation. Yet the God postulated by Christianity is not capable of empirical observation, and any influence he has on nature would look, well, natural to us. What kind of further evidence could we expect to see, if God and creation are as postulated by Christianity? None. So the fact that you can't observe something which you would expect not to see if the claims of creation were true does nothing to suggest that they are false.

More fundamentally, one of the foundational axioms of the scientific method is that things do exist - i.e. the universe is not illusory. But the fact that this is an axiom tells us that this is unproven and unprovable. (If we could prove it, we wouldn't need to make it axiomatic.) And, obviously, science can't validly or meaningfully interrogate or look its own foundational axioms - that pesky logic again.

In short, what we're up against here is the limitations of science as a mode of enquiry. Believers are making claims which science cannot interrogate. It follows that, just as science cannot prove them, it equally cannot disprove them; it can tell us nothing useful about them.

That's not to say, of course, that no religious claim is capable of scientific investigation. The claim that Jesus Christ was crucified, for example, could be scientifically investigated, although at this lapse of time the conclusions (one way or the other) might in practice have to be attended with some degree of uncertainty. But the claim that by his death he redeemed the world? Not capable of any kind of scientific falsification or confirmation. You can accept this claim or you can reject it but, either way, you choice is not compelled by scientific investigation.

solodeogloria

Nadia Gorgeous Bathtub wrote: »

There's two guys I'd recommend.
One was a carpenter and the other a tailor.
They were called Jesus and Paul . They said some fairly deep stuff that was and is ground breaking.

Good morning!

I totally agree. I think these are the "champions" of Christianity.

If you're interested in exploring I'd recommend having a read of The Reason for God by Tim Keller. Or God's Undertaker by John Lennox if you're into something that discusses the relationship between Christianity and modern science. I'd also recommend The God Who Is There by D.A Carson with a Bible open if you want a good Bible overview from a Christian perspective that explains how the Bible works together. If you want a more probing book that deals with common objections I recommend The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel.

These guys are not "champions" though but ordinary pastors and apologists who serve the Lord Jesus faithfully. Nothing more and certainly nothing less. Moreover none of these are substitutes to reading the Bible for yourself and praying that God would reveal Himself to you. I prayed that nearly 10 years ago not expecting any form of answer but God powerfully showed me His Son as I read His Word.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Speedwell

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

[...]


Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Morning, Solo. I don't think the OP is looking for resources to assist a conversion, so much as opposition arguments worthy of a serious approach. You may get a better idea of the request if you review the first post in the sister thread.

gillad

Kings Inns or bust wrote: »

Many Thanks, a different view which I shall definitely take a look at. I wonder if Goswami main thrust is somewhat Spinozian. It may take me quite some time but if you'd oblige me in remaining subscribed to the thread I would certainly welcome a discussion on Goswami.

I wont give you my view on Goswami as it is my view on his view.It would be best to get your own view untarnished/not water downed by my view.I can not give his books the credit they deserve by trying to explain them in a post here...so apologies for that.:(

It is interesting and a new way of seeing us...Evolution of the concept of religion is long overdue.....It will probabaly take some time to get through his books or you may not like any of his stuff but it is connected to the workings of the quantum world which is what we are.

I will just say one thing which is,science understands that quantum mechanics does not make sense,science says the quantum laws of physics changes somewhere before they get to our reality but that does not make sense either.Goswami is not afraid to speak out about this issue which is "what are we?" "what is consciousness?" "what is god?"

I believe in god and the teachings of love by jesus which makes me a christian.
I dont pray and i dont believe in sin.I believe in experience as a conscious being and freedom to choose

Eramen

gillad wrote: »

I wont give you my view on Goswami as it is my view on his view.It would be best to get your own view untarnished/not water downed by my view.I can not give his books the credit they deserve by trying to explain them in a post here...so apologies for that.:(

It is interesting and a new way of seeing us...Evolution of the concept of religion is long overdue.....It will probabaly take some time to get through his books or you may not like any of his stuff but it is connected to the workings of the quantum world which is what we are.

I will just say one thing which is,science understands that quantum mechanics does not make sense,science says the quantum laws of physics changes somewhere before they get to our reality but that does not make sense either.Goswami is not afraid to speak out about this issue which is "what are we?" "what is consciousness?" "what is god?"

I believe in god and the teachings of love by jesus which makes me a christian.
I dont pray and i dont believe in sin.I believe in experience as a conscious being and freedom to choose

While I find the study of quantum physics fascinating, I do not see a mutual intelligibility between most metaphysics (especially traditional systems) and the quantum models.

These arithmetical models are by their nature defined in terms of quantity, while the metaphysics is qualitative affair. Yet can both forms of knowledge eventually meet 'on a higher level' with enough research? In my elementary understanding, not really. Our idea of a rock for example (quality) will never achieve an exact unity with the natural make-up of the rock (quantity) no matter how we approach measurement/criteria. They are separate sciences or modes of being.

Quantum mechanics seeks to explain higher forms of reality by delving into the lower part of that reality (particles, inferred values, timed-measurements etc) via using mathematical systems. But the problem is the highest realm they can ever observe with this method is the material of the natural universe; so in theory we can never understand anything above this level by using the natural sciences; we can only gauge what's below it i.e. the universe's principles of change expressed as mathematics/theorems.

It's important to understand that causes never exist in the below, only in the above (I forget the theory that's attached to), thus the cause for our existence will never be breached by empirical research. Metaphysics in my opinion is more useful for solving this problem of how to best comprehend the higher orders. In this regard i would start with the basic premise of Christianity, and indeed all Western philosophy - that the Perfected or virtuous man is the Telos of physical reality.

These articles may interest you. The blogger is a mathematician by profession so may lend what he is explaining more substance.

http://www.gornahoor.net/?p=8555

http://www.gornahoor.net/?p=8573

Lastly, I think one has to believe in sin. Sin is 'to miss the mark' via one's own error. Sin is not inherent in the world, it is self-created by man. Thus Christ died as the Son of Man for the errors of man, and indeed it was through sin he was crucified in the first place.

Therefore he calls us to repent - to change one's mind, one's inner man in pursuit of the divine perfection.

solodeogloria

Speedwell wrote: »

Morning, Solo. I don't think the OP is looking for resources to assist a conversion, so much as opposition arguments worthy of a serious approach. You may get a better idea of the request if you review the first post in the sister thread.

Good morning!

I can't convert anyone. That's up to God alone. It's both a great frustration but also a great joy in the Christian life.

A frustration because there isn't a magic procedure that will just make someone believe. A grace because that power would make people prideful and not depend on God. A joy because God is far kinder than we are.

If the OP is asking this and they are not willing to consider following the Lord Jesus then I can conclude that they aren't looking for a reason.

I hope the OP is and I'm willing to help by any means. Posts, PMs, books to read, good Bible teaching churches in Ireland and overseas. There is nothing more important than this so why focus on anything else.

The argument that Christianity presents to the world in Jesus is definitely worth considering in it's own right. The other books I've cited are helpful. I can't lie. My hope and prayer is of course that the OP would become a Christian.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

gillad

Eramen wrote: »

These articles may interest you. The blogger is a mathematician by profession so may lend what he is explaining more substance.

http://www.gornahoor.net/?p=8555

http://www.gornahoor.net/?p=8573.

Thanks I will have a look.

We have different views on sin and what jesus was doing by coming back from the dead but i respect all views...what ever make a person happy is most important.

Joe1919

Reinhold Niebuhr wrote about 'The Nature and Destiny of Man' back in the late 1940's. He discusses the nature of man in Vol 1 and its a good read. He is a dialectical thinker and sees man as both good & bad, free & determined, both in his own time (and part of nature) but also (due to his reflective and imaginative powers), man is always running outside his own place and time (in reflection, planning, speculation, remembering etc). This makes man tend to become anxious and neurotic and here lies much trouble. He defends the Christian worldview (despite its problems), on the basis that it deals best with this aspect of man.

His Chapter X of Vol 1 is called 'Justitia Originalis'

Giacomo McGubbin

Nice to see a quality thread survive for a moment on this forum.

I'd recommend our own Dr. John Lennox from Armagh, a professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, and a scholar of the philosophy of science.

I'd also recommend William Lane Craig, Lee Strobel, J.P Moreland, C.S. Lewis, Daniel Wallace, Bruce Metzger, Ravi Zacharias, Gary Habermas, NT Wright

recedite

Kings Inns or bust wrote: »

I've found myself being drawn more and more to people like Hitchens and Dawkins. For the sake of balance who are the celebrity thinkers of the Christian faith..

The basic problem here is that you want to compare apples with oranges. The celebrities of Christianity are people of great faith, they are not necessarily thinkers.
Perhaps they have tapped into something greater than human thought. Then again, perhaps not. We'll never know (unless of course they turn out to be right).

Kings Inns or bust

recedite wrote: »

The basic problem here is that you want to compare apples with oranges. The celebrities of Christianity are people of great faith, they are not necessarily thinkers.
Perhaps they have tapped into something greater than human thought. Then again, perhaps not. We'll never know (unless of course they turn out to be right).

I'm willing to 'suspend disbelief' so to speak. While I'm not willing to accept the answer 'you just have to have faith' I suppose I'm more looking for a discussion on religion. Frankly while I'm not completely opposed to a deity of some kind, beyond our comprehension, I do have a hard time with a deity as described in the Bible with frankly rather Earthly failings and passions.

My further issue is I'm not a complete novice, although I do willingly admit a lack of any expert opinion, to various religious studies. I don't think anyone would argue with various religious texts, including the Bible, being incomplete, retellings of retellings complied around the 11th century AD IIRC. I suppose then I need to make a further admission that I'm an aspiring lawyer not a theologist and I'm not willing to put the time it takes to assemble the requisite knowledge of a degree or further level of education there either.

Lastly I do not wish to attract a passionate attack or defence of the faith many people enjoy and have solace in. I'm looking for a dispassionate, as far as possible, sources to aid my understanding - mainly in the direction of natural law and natural human rights.

Thank you for taking the time to reply.

solodeogloria

Good evening!

Kings Inns or bust wrote: »

I'm willing to 'suspend disbelief' so to speak. While I'm not willing to accept the answer 'you just have to have faith' I suppose I'm more looking for a discussion on religion. Frankly while I'm not completely opposed to a deity of some kind, beyond our comprehension, I do have a hard time with a deity as described in the Bible with frankly rather Earthly failings and passions.

I suspect this is because you see faith as believing despite the evidence. This isn't the Christian model of belief. The Bible is quite clear that we believe in light of the evidence that we have of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus from the eyewitnesses (John 20:30-31). It isn't a blind wish. It is trust. I trust Jesus.

On earthly "failings" and passions. I don't think God has ever failed. We're the only ones who have failed and fallen short of His glory (Romans 3:23). The Bible is clear on that much. On "passions" and "earthly". It depends on what you mean by "earthly". In a sense God is earthly because He has created this world and He longs to relate to humanity and come into relationship with us. Perhaps you can explain this more.

Kings Inns or bust wrote: »

My further issue is I'm not a complete novice, although I do willingly admit a lack of any expert opinion, to various religious studies. I don't think anyone would argue with various religious texts, including the Bible, being incomplete, retellings of retellings complied around the 11th century AD IIRC. I suppose then I need to make a further admission that I'm an aspiring lawyer not a theologist and I'm not willing to put the time it takes to assemble the requisite knowledge of a degree or further level of education there either.

Nobody is asking you to be an expert. All I ask is that you have an open mind. That includes being open to the idea of following Jesus as Lord.

I'm not impressed much by so called "experts" of religion anyway. In fact I'm not massively impressed by people who make much of their education or their career or anything else in this life. At the end of time these things won't much matter. What will matter is whether or not we believe and trust in the Lord Jesus.

Last night I was struck by this passage at church:

2 Thessalonians 1:5-12 ESV wrote:

This is evidence of the righteous judgement of God, that you may be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are also suffering—since indeed God considers it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marvelled at among all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed. To this end we always pray for you, that our God may make you worthy of his calling and may fulfil every resolve for good and every work of faith by his power, so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Judgement and salvation. Our maturity in Jesus, our trust in Him and our love for others will be the only thing that counts on the last day. Did we trust in His saving death or did we ignore Him. The Bible is very very stark on this. God won't be interested in whether or not we think He is a failure, because He knows the truth. He sent His Son into the world so that He might perish and that we might have eternal life. (John 3:16-18)

There will be two things that will happen according to that passage in 2 Thessalonians.
1) Those who believe will marvel at Jesus.
2) Those who reject Him will not be with Him, and will face eternal destruction.

This is more serious than a philosophical pastime.

Kings Inns or bust wrote: »

Lastly I do not wish to attract a passionate attack or defence of the faith many people enjoy and have solace in. I'm looking for a dispassionate, as far as possible, sources to aid my understanding - mainly in the direction of natural law and natural human rights.

Thank you for taking the time to reply.

My faith isn't a comfort blanky. Anything but. I think my life in many ways has become much harder following Jesus. It is a life of sacrifice. It isn't a comfort blanky or make believe. In fact Christianity is more gritty and more real than the view of the world we often like to believe.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

recedite

Kings Inns or bust wrote: »

Frankly while I'm not completely opposed to a deity of some kind, beyond our comprehension, I do have a hard time with a deity as described in the Bible with frankly rather Earthly failings and passions.

The Old Testament has a god and a morality appropriate for those times; they were savage and vengeful times. New religion has adapted to become more compassionate and also more difficult to pin down. Stuff like talking bushes and snakes is not taught as being literally true any more.
Natural law can be seen as a secular or a religious construct. While the likes of Dawkins will say we have evolved a sense of ethics and natural justice to aid our survival as a social species, the religious will say it has been handed down to us. They will say morality is both unchanging but open to improved interpretations. In other words, it evolves.
If you accept there is an evolving system of natural law/ethics, and your godhead is not a superhero, but a vague notion of the universe itself, there is very little difference between atheist, theist and deist.

Peregrinus

Well, one of the striking points about theist versus nontheist morality is how little difference there is between them. Where other cultural factors are similar and the only or principal difference between two people is that one embraces religious belief and the other rejects it, their respective moral systems and moral stances are typically all but identical.

You can try to account for this by pointing to historical influence - Western civilisation is profoundly marked by Christianity, so is it that surprising that "consensus" Western morality remains influenced by Christian moral thinking? Therefore unbelievers do not avoid the cultural inheritance of Christianity. But you can also say that it's more than just inertia; a good deal of Christian morality rests on a few fundamental values like, say, the inherent value of the human person. And someone who rejects the theistic aspects of Christianity may be happy to embrace and retain the humanistic aspects of Christianity.

There's sometimes a degree of denial about this. A common trope over on the Atheist & Agnostic forum is to sneer at "bronze age moral rules". Yet the same posters who sneer at bronze age moral rules will in other posts affirm that their own ethics are based on the Golden Rule ("Treat others as you would wish to be treated"), which is pretty well the pre-eminent bronze age moral rule. Simlarly on this board you'll find Christians who assume or imply that morality without religion is impossible or, at least, incoherent. Both groups, it seems to me, are trying to avoid the truth, which is that theistic and non-theistic morality are pretty much the same, in our society.

Joe1919

Peregrinus wrote: »

You can try to account for this by pointing to historical influence - Western civilisation is profoundly marked by Christianity, so is it that surprising that "consensus" Western morality remains influenced by Christian moral thinking?

I agree with you here and this also applies to law . A specific example given to me was with regards to the justification of the Law of Tort in England.

Lord Atkin argued that the law should recognise a unifying principle that we owe a duty of reasonable care to our neighbour. He quoted the Bible in support of his argument, specifically the general, biblical principle that "love thy neighbour."
"The liability for negligence… is no doubt based upon a general public sentiment of moral wrongdoing for which the offender must pay… The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law, you must not injure your neighbour; and the lawyer's question, Who is my neighbour? receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour."[3]
Thus, in the world of law, he created the doctrine that we should not harm our neighbours.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_tort_law