Which is exactly what Ted is doing. He believes that honor killing is wrong. The real reason he believes that honor killing is wrong is that he lives in a secular, urban, cosmpolitan society, and not in a village in Pakistan. Just as, the real reason he doesn't believe in witches is that he lives in a secular, urban, cosmopolitan society, and not in a village in medieval Europe (or modern Nigeria). However, that's not good enough. He needs his to have the truth of his belief guaranteed by God, I mean, reason. If you notice, his whole argument is in the form, "if there is no guarantor that x is wrong, then I couldn't say that x is universally wrong. I know that x is universally wrong, therefore there must be a guarantor that x is wrong, which is why I know that x is universally wrong." It's totally circular.
----- Original Message ---- From: C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu>
A proof of God ought really to be something by means of which you can convince yourself of God's existence. But I think that believers who offer such proofs want to analyze and make a case for their "belief" with their intellect, altho' they themselves would never have arrived at belief by way of such proofs. --CGE