Philosoft

Close enough.

<strong> This is a presupposition that does not self-validate. Indeed, it is circular: any argument of this type will have a premise of the form, "God created the universe" which assumes what one is trying to prove.

<strong> Not remotely. I'm not yet through Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, but it's clear that Hume was a secular moralist. Indeed, he figures God's nature surpasses humans' by such a degree that we are not capable of understanding. And Russell was, quite famously, an atheist.

{edited to add}
After reading Syn's post, I understand you mean the problem of induction. I'll just defer to Syn's perfectly adequate explanation.

<strong> But, since miracles are, by definition, violations of naturalistic causation, how does one know what one is seeing?

<strong> This is the, "I'd like to have it both ways" defense. Of course, this denies God's omnipotence. You are saying that God tells humans they must behave in certain ways because he is incapable of telling humans to behave in other ways.

<strong> Moral (inter)subjectivism is perfectly valid and is something you engage in every day. There are many things we consider 'evil' or 'good' that are nowhere addressed by Christian doctrine. Human cloning is an area wherein people make condemnations without scriptural support. The arguments are, "That's against God!" or somesuch, but nowhere in the Bible appears the passage, "Thou shalt not make another human from an existing human in a manner other than sexual reproduction."

Perhaps you can clear something up. Is murder objectively immoral because it is written in a book that is said to be the word of God or is it because we have a "feeling," an emotional aversion to murder that was put there by God?

[ August 09, 2002: Message edited by: Philosoft ]</p>

Kent Symanzik

Hi Synaesthesia,

My point was simply that atheistic worldviews do not have an answer for Hume's skepticism whereas I believe that Christian theism does. In other words, we all know that nature is uniform and therefore make full use of induction but only Christian theism is found to be rational in so doing.

Miracles are simply occurances that are not events that we perceive to be normal. They are not arbitrary because God knows the future exhaustively and ordained the miracle according to his plan. Miracles are not miracles to God but only to us because we understand them as anomilies to our perception of uniformity of nature. But to God all miracles are part of his uniform plan.

Thanks for clarifying things much better than I did.

Kent

Kent Symanzik

All presuppositions are circular but not all are self-defeating as empiricism is. Therefore presuppositions must be shown to be valid indirectly by how they comport with one's total worldview.

Are you saying that when a scientist performs an experiment he cannot know whether the cause was supernatural (miracle) or natural? As I was trying to explain before, the uniformity of nature is only logical in the Christian worldview. The Christian scientist expects nature to be uniform because of God's lawlike ordaining of it. In an atheistic worldview, the scientist is working in a random universe that for some unknown reason appears to be uniform. Isn't it the uniformity that the atheist should really be perplexed about?

There is a common misconception of what Christian theology means when it says that God is omnipotent. There are many things that God cannot do. He cannot lie, he cannot change, he cannot make a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it. Omnipotence does not mean that God can violate his own nature. Just as he cannot be irrational he cannot change his moral character.

Yes, the bible does not directly address all the moral dilemmas that we have to deal with. But God's stance on these dilemmas can usually be inferred from scripture. The important point here is that it is not God's moral character that is variable but rather our understanding of it.

But I do not see how atheistic worldviews answer the Euthyphro dilemma. I have not found any atheistic worldviews where standards of morality are not completely arbitrary and subjective. This is one of the reasons why I believe these worldviews must be rejected.

Both. God gave us a conscience which helps us to know right and wrong. That is why those that have never read the bible still have a sense of morality.

Kent

acronos

Is empiricism self-defeating?

My observation is that mandatory evidence from observation has proven an extremely reliable premise for weeding out bad premises and also an extremely reliable premise for picking good ones. My observation is the stronger the evidence the more probable the accuracy.

I hold a few premises without adequate evidence. For instance, the world is real and not an illusion. However, the ability to even ask this question is based on observation. What is an illusion if there were no observation? This belief would change in a heartbeat if I had evidence otherwise. Then my observation would be an illusion but it would still exist - just as surely as “I think therefore I am.” The thought itself is the evidence. How is it not an observation to observe that “all knowledge comes from observation?” Whoever observed it the first time was surely looking at anecdotal evidence. They probably thought to themselves, can I think of any exceptions to this rule? Thinking - nope I have evidence because I’m thinking. How about reality - nope I have evidence or I couldn’t think. Even wrong observations such as, “The Christian God exists” - I have evidence because it is in the bible, I have personal experience with God, and I have traditions. It is still an observation. It is just that the evidence is lacking so it is a very weak observation.

If you want to convince someone else you need evidence. I would never argue my belief that the world is real. I don’t have any evidence. It just matches my biases. My biases are based on my observation.

I would not even argue strongly that “there is no God” because I do not have adequate evidence. If someone says their gun is god, I say ok. If someone says my gun has intelligence, I say show me. There probably are God’s out there by someone’s definition. There may be very powerful aliens out there that would seem as Gods. I wouldn’t argue otherwise. However, the Christian God is evil and full of holes and contradictions. I would argue against the Christian God.

acronos

This may should be in the morality thread. If so, I apologize.

Almost every religion in the world holds some form of the belief, "do unto others what you would have them do unto you." All of these religions agree because this principle makes sense. It is in my best interest to honor this principle.

Let me give an example of this principle in action. There is a species of bat that lives on blood. It can only live a few days without food before it dies. Sometimes a bat will be unable to make a kill before it would die. When this happens, members of the community share their own blood. There is a simple rule at work in this society. Members who do not share are not shared with. Members who are not shared with eventually die. There is strong incentive to share. Human beings who do not work together usually die too.

Rape, pillage, murder are pretty much universally upsetting to humans. Many years ago slavery was socially acceptable. Women were close to property. The morals of American society have changed significantly in the last few hundred years. Do you believe slavery is wrong? Nowhere in the bible does it say slavery is wrong. In fact, the bible often condones slavery. Did God change his mind? Is it really immoral for a man to have long hair or for a woman to pray with her head uncovered? (1 Corinthians 11:3-14) Is it really immoral for women not to wear a burqa? Many Muslims think it is. Why is it ok for a woman in Germany not to shave her legs, but over in the USA it is not socially acceptable? Is shaving your legs really a moral issue? If culture can dictate things like this, why can't it dictate morals?

I am an atheist, and I have morals. I am just as disgusted by the recent child abductions as I am sure you are. If belief in God is the source of all morals, why do I have them. If God himself is the source of all morals, why are they changing? Does the Christian God change?

Morality is not arbitrary for an atheist. It is in his or her best interest. It is HUMAN nature.

Buffman

Welcome Kent Symanzik

I would not describe my Christian presupposition exactly the way you did. My Christian presupposition is the Christian God as revealed in scripture. My knowledge of him is by his revealing himself in scripture and secondly in nature. God is self-authoritative in that there is no higher authority than himself. Simply stated, who could he possibly appeal to for authorization? If he did appeal to anyone else he would not be God.

You may wonder if I would give up my Christian theistic presupposition if I was shown that it was irrational, incoherent, or inconsistent. I suppose I would have to. But, I'm sure it would be difficult as I would probably doubt my own understanding of the problem first. It may be the same with many atheists. But, so far, I have not seen any really difficult challenges to my Christian worldview. And I have not found any other worldview that does not result in absurdity.

God gave us a conscience which helps us to know right and wrong. That is why those that have never read the bible still have a sense of morality.


I have just enjoyed reading through this string, but found three of your statements somewhat baffling. I will readily admit that many things baffle me. Therefore, please do not view my comments as anything more than my simple curiosity about the statements based on other remarks you have stated so eloquently to support your personal "worldview."

You state that, primarily, you use scripture to "reveal" your God. Might I inquire exactly how much sincere effort you have ever put into determining the accurate origins and translations of these specific scriptures that you use? Secondarily you say that you use scripture and nature to provide you with "knowledge" about your God. Would I be correct to assume that, by including nature, you see an Intelligent Design in that nature that provides you with this "knowledge?" If so, exactly what is that design?

If you were to doubt your own understanding of a problem, what steps would you take to lessen or eliminate the doubt without resorting merely to an increased faith belief?--- Since you request a challenge, I request that you provide some testable evidence that the scriptures that you use to "reveal" your supernatural God are divinely inspired. Then I must ask you to explain why you evidently believe that your God could not/did not have other divine scriptures produced by human writers. Why else would you ever claim that all other faith belief religions only result in worldview absurdities unless you were intimately familiar with all their scriptures and were able to compare them with your own and among themselves...especially since Christians can not even agree among themselves what is valid and what is not? (Could your current position not be "worldviewed" as rather under-informed and arrogant?)

Finally, please define "conscience" and "sense of morality," if you would. Are you speaking about how our biological senses have been impacted by the environment to condition our individual brain-mind interface to provide us with the best opportunity for survival...both physically and psychologically? (i.e.: If you are starving to death, would you eat human flesh? Is it possible that right-wrong, good-bad and moral-immoral are actually premised more on fear and survival (biological drives) than supernatural gods and miracles?)

Thanks for your indulence of a non-philosopher.

Kent Symanzik

Hi Acronos,

Have you observed all knowledge?

Kent

Kent Symanzik

Hi Acronos,

I have never stated that atheists do not have morals. It is the fact they they do have morals that cause their own atheistic worldviews to be irrational because all atheistic worldviews that I know do not provide a rational foundation for morality.

Belief in God is not the source of all morals. Rather God is the standard of morality. This does not mean that all people follow God's moral code. God's standard of morality does not change but rather people's understanding of the standard of morality does. You can even say that people's understanding of God's morality can change but not the standard itself.

There are some things in this statement that have been assumed without justification. In an atheist worldview, how do you define what is one's best interest? What makes one's best interest good? Is it just defined by want one wants? Then what makes what one wants good? I have heard some atheists say that good is whatever causes the survival of the human race. Then I must ask what makes survival good?

I am not trying to be a real pain here. I am trying to point out that standards of morality depend on the metaphysical nature of our worldview in order to be objective. Morality also only makes sense to persons. Therefore, if our existence ultimately is impersonal stuff then we cannot even make sense out of morality. Questions of morality and value only make sense in a personal universe. There is no value difference between 2 different bags of chemicals.
It is like asking what is the value difference between my can of Coke and your can of Pepsi. They are both just cans of chemicals fissing. Someone may respond that the value is from me liking Coke better than the Pepsi. But in so doing this person is forgetting that he/she is ultimately no different than the can of pop. We are after all, in the atheistic worldview, just bags of chemicals fissing.

If you are an athiest who thinks that we are more than bags of chemicals then I think you will need to establish that before we can address the problems of morality.

Thanks for raising good issues.

Kent

[ August 11, 2002: Message edited by: Kent Symanzik ]

[ August 11, 2002: Message edited by: Kent Symanzik ]</p>

Kent Symanzik

Hi Buffman,

I have done some personal research into this issue. I wrote a book review of "The historicity of the Gospels", by Craig Bloomburg for a class I took. There seems to be good support for believing that what we call the bible today is the same as what was originally written. The manuscript evidence is unsurpassed by any other ancient writings. In other words, we have more reason to accept the manuscripts of scripture than we do manuscripts of plato, Homer, etc.

If you have specific issues that concern you please raise them and I will do my best to address them.

I'm not sure I understand exactly what you are asking. Yes, I do see design in the universe. I am absolutely amazed at how our own body works even though I admit that I have limited knowledge of it.

This is a very good question and one that is hard to answer. I certainly would take steps to try to understand the problem. The difficulty here for the Christian is that we are not autonomous in our thinking. Man is not the measure but rather God is. So, we are not being inconsistent with our worldview if we doubt our own understanding. It is just that God has given us such wonderful knowledge of Himself and our place in the universe which all fits together in a coherent, consistent, and rational worldview. And it is not a situation where we have other rational worldviews to choose from.

We must also understand that while God has revealed such wonderful things to us he has not given us exhaustive knowledge about anything. Some things have just not been revealed but most of these are not actual problems. For instance, we may wonder why God has chosen to save me from damnation while not saving others. This is not actually a problem but rather a lack of knowledge on our part.

But other instances of lack of knowledge may be considered problems. For instance, since God ordains all things that come to pass and yet he does not cause anyone to sin how is it that he is not responsible for Adam's sin. I admit that I have not figured this out but I have not spent sufficient time on it either. So, it is in the state of where I believe that there is an answer but I do not know it yet. Similar to when a naturalist sees an anomoly in nature. He figures that it will be understood in due time.

I will answer the rest of your questions in a separate post. Thanks for the great questions.

Kent

Kent Symanzik

Simply because God said so. He is my ultimate authority. He says in I Peter and 2 Timothy that the scriptures are God-breathed. The men who wrote them were moved by the Holy Spirit.

First, I don't think I said that every other worldview results in absurdities but rather every one that I know of. Second, the scriptures that we have are what the church has recognized as being God's word to us. Could the church be wrong? Certainly (At least according to protestants). But, in my worldview, that is not a problem because God is in control of all things including what we consider to be the scriptures. I have no reason to question whether he was able to deliver them to us.

I would not restrict conscience or sense of morality to our physical being. I am not a materialist. I believe we are physical and that we have a soul.

This sounds more like how an atheist may attempt to justify moral standards. I certainly do not hold to this. If you are proposing this as a possibility then I would ask what makes survival good or right and what makes non-survival wrong? If we are ultimately chance combinations of matter then life compared to non-life are simply changes in state. There is nothing that ultimately gives either state more value over the other.

Kent