Thomas Metcalf

Thanks for your reply.

Originally posted by Kent Symanzik:

"You may have noticed that not all atheists believe in the necessity of logic. It appears that you do, so my question to you is how do you account for the universal invariant laws of logic in your worldview? If you have an atheistic worldview you live in a world of particulars only. How do universals exist in your worldview. What is their foundation?"

I don't think there is any reason to doubt analytic truths, and logic is analytically true. I assume you mean to ask how I know that the laws of logic apply to the real universe, throughout it; the answer is that I do not. I simply assume it for practical purposes, especially because I cannot conceive of them not applying.

As for universals, I am a nominalist. I do not believe universals exist, per se. When we claim that some number of objects has a property in common, we are simply affirming that there is a "family resemblance" between them, that something about each of them makes us think of the other ones.

"I take this to mean that you think the Christian God is fiction. But, that is what we are debating. Can you show why the Christian God must not exist?"

I do think the god of Christian apologists is fictional, and further, I think that that there isn't enough evidence to believe in Him. But I do not believe this is the point at hand; you seem to be offering a transcendental argument rather than an evidential argument. You think it is best to assume He exists so that we may have epistemic foundations, no?

My response is that we cannot understand how God's existence would somehow produce epistemic foundations, if His nonexistence would mean the foundations do not exist. Until we understand this, the atheist may simply choose to believe in epistemic foundations themselves, without belief in God. This is the "Epistemo" point; the atheist could even believe in a finite, stupid, evil being who did not create the universe, but whose existence somehow produces epistemic foundations.

"I am not familiar with the transcendental moral argument from evil. I am familiar with the Euthyphro dilemma. This is how I answered it in an earlier post."

The transcendental moral arguments from evil depend on your moral position. Do you consider yourself a utilitarian, a divine command theorist, a deontologist, or something else?

"My answer to the Euthyphro dilemma is that morality is not an entity that is outside of God himself. It is part of his very character. It defines who he is. Therefore, the basis of morality cannot be changed as it is not something that God made up but rather it is who he is. Just as God is holy he is moral."

This statement makes no sense to me. It does not explain why or how God's character could produce an objective system of morality, and I have no idea how a person's existence could cause moral foundations to obtain. Again, the atheist may simply believe in moral foundations without believing in God, until this process is explained.

"Can you elaborate on this? How does your worldview provide a foundation for universals?"

The materialist has rather a hard time believing in universals, but she can be a conceptualist; these philosophers believe that universals are identical to portions of mental states. The non-materialist can believe in Plato's heaven without believing in any gods.

Keith Russell

Greetings:

How do I 'account for' the fact that logic works?

I don't have to 'account for' it--

--logic simply works! A is A. Things are what they are, and remain what they are, even when I'm sure I put my car keys somewhere else!

Keith.

acronos

Thomas Metcalf:
Why? I have been following this thread for a long time and I have yet to understand this statement. Maybe another atheist can explain it to me. Why do materialists have a hard time believing in universals? What restricts a materialists belief in universals? I don't believe in many the universals that Kent is referring to because I see many examples in other cultures that contradict Kent’s universals. My lack of belief is not because of any restriction in my belief system. Can you help me understand why you said this?

[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: acronos ]

[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: acronos ]</p>

Kent Symanzik

Hi Goliath,

I understand the distinction you make and I have no desire to debate the definition of atheist. I'm just pointing out when someone assumes the non-existence of God in the premise of their argument without first proving that premise. That is all.

Kent

Typhon

Hi.

I assume no such thing.

I have clear evidence of altruistic behavior both among humans as well as among other social species. I can trace the development of belief in gods and the supernatural through both recorded history and archeology. I can see the existence of such "moral" behavior among all examples, as well as well grounded evolutionary reasons for such behavior, testable, verifiable, observable reasons. I can observe that ethics and "morality" are concepts and forms of behavior that do not appear in any manner or in any visible way, to stem from the necessary pre-existence of supernatural or imaginary beings. I can do all this AND I have no belief in god or gods based on an extreme paucity of evidence for their existence or even probability of existence.

Thus, I can say that morality does not seem to require the belief in a god or gods or even to arise from such a belief. This is an observation, based on the available and most reliable facts, and has nothing to do with any assumption of the non-existence of god or gods.

Again, there is ample evidence for evolutionary reasons and advantages for the observed behavior found in such social species as Homo sapiens and others. This does not depend upon the question of the existence of god or gods, either way. In fact, it doesn't involve it at all. That there is no evidence of any credible nature for the existence of god or gods, is a separate issue. Thus, I state that your claim that all morality arises from a supernatural source to be false, or at best, based upon misinformed and biased opinion, and that my premise here does not rest on my lack of belief in god or gods at all.

Observing that altruistic behavior exists in species which do not appear to possess any observable belief in god or gods, such as olive baboons for example, coupled with the well demonstrated fact that we share a common if distant line of descent, inclines me to suspect with good reason, that such characteristics, the foundations of modern "morality" in our own species in this case, likely predated our creation of the abstract concepts and the practice of worshiping god and gods, completely aside from the question of their actual existence and/or validity.

That is a separate issue, not an "assumption."

Morality exists, and can be shown to have its roots in biological and evolutionary processes and advantages, tempered by the growth and complexity of human social interaction. God and gods have no credible evidence for their existence, so claims that an observable, understandable, testable phenomena is dependent upon a non-observable, un-substantiated, unlikely source, is highly suspect.

.T.

[ September 06, 2002: Message edited by: Typhon ]</p>

Jack the Bodiless

The foundation is survival. Proto-humans with a preference for cooperation survived: proto-humans without social instincts lived alone and got eaten by saber-toothed tigers and suchlike. The difference between life and death is far from arbitrary!

Merely repeating "you cannot get from non-moral foundations to morality" doesn't make it so. You have failed to provide a reason why this is not possible.

As I already know that the Biblical God does not exist (for the reasons already alluded to), yet I know that humans have morality, it is reasonable to assume that morality can exist without God. This implies that there must be a non-God-dependent mechanism capable of producing a "sense of morality". I also know (from further scientific evidence) that evolution occurs, and I note that evolution is capable of producing this.

Therefore there is no reason to assume the existence of God.

Even without a God, there are numerous reasons to behave "morally". Apart from evolved empathy and social conditioning, there is the Golden Rule, fear of making enemies, and ultimately fear of imprisonment.

babelfish

Sorry to jump in so extremely late.

Kent posted:

Kent, I have a simple question for you and other Christians who say that without Biblical morality originating with God there is no firm, unchanging foundation for human morality:

How do you guys know that Biblical morality is "good?" On what basis do you feel confident in following the tenets you follow? If you didn't already have a moral compass somewhere else besides the Bible, you wouldn't have any way of knowing that how you are behaving is the correct way for humans to behave.

I mean, just think about it: what if the Bible was really a trick, perpetrated by Satan upon the human race. Everything you are doing by following the Bible is actually evil! You would have no way of knowing whether or not this is true! Just because someone claimed to be God, if you didn't have some sense of right and wrong, independent of external directives, you would have no way of knowing whether the moral code you're following is good or evil!

Kent Symanzik

Hello sir-drinks,

Using dogs as examples may make things more confusing. Sometimes I think my dog is smart and rational but then other times he seems to be very irrational.

But, since your question is about the requirment of belief in God how about we change the example to a person in a remote part of the world that has never heard of the Christian God. He still can be rational because belief in God is not what is required. What is required is that God created him as God's image and as a rationally thinking being.

So, belief is not what is required but God is required. Hope this clears it up some.

You don't necessarily have to presuppose just one thing but whatever you presuppose should cohere with all your presuppositions. A worldview is a network of beliefs. We are analyzing them according to how the beliefs cohere with eachother, etc.

I'm not sure what you are getting at when you ask if I presupposed the entire text of the bible. Are you thinking that I must know my presupposition completely or comprehensively? It will be impossible for me to do so. The critical thing is that Christian theism is a revelational epistomology. It is not up to me to know everything but to know that God is my source of knowledge.

It seems in your question that you are assuming that God does not exist. Is this right?

Anyway, when I presuppose the Christian God, within that presupposition is the presupposition that he exists. If he exists, he knows much more than sir-drinks-a-lot and sir-drinks-a-lot is dependent on God for everything whether he knows it or not.

Hopefully, I understood your question correctly. I hope your travels are going well.

Kent

Keith Russell

Kent:

If the only reason you have for behaving morally is your belief that God exists, please continue to believe that God exists.

I benefit more by having you a theist who behaves morally, than I do by having you become an atheistic sociopath.

Do you really think that you have done more than simply claim that God exists? Do you believe that you have offered 'evidence'?

All you have offered is the claim that God has endowed every human being with the ability to reason and and the potential to act morally.

Claims, however, need independently verifiable evidence to support them, before rational persons should accept the claims as valid.

Claims are not in and of themselves evidence.

You need to do a great deal more thinking.

Keith.

[ September 06, 2002: Message edited by: Keith Russell ]</p>

Kent Symanzik

Hi Thomas,

If universals do not exist then what are the laws of logic in your worldview? Are they an inherent property in every bit of matter? Do they just exist in brains as concepts?

It is near impossible for me to conceive of the laws of logic as anything other than abstract universals.

I'm not sure I understand you at this point. It seems that someone who does not believe in God can understand that he does not have a foundation for his epistomology. But, it so happens that I do know the foundation for epistomology as the Christian God. God transcends the universe and is the ultimate basis for all things.

I do not understand how you could view your Epistemo non-god as equivalent to the Christian God.

I'm sorry that I am not really familar with these terms. My moral standard is God so I think that would make me a divine comand theorist.

Like I said above, even if you do not understand this process you can understand that you have no foundation for morality. I will try to explain myself better. God's will is the definition of good which conforms to his holy and just character.

Which one are you?

Kent