Vorkosigan

However, if I am not mistaken, the presuppositionalist (e.g., Bahnsen) holds that while there is no "neutral" standpoint between believers and non believers, there is "common ground" between them that is interpreted in various ways that are determined by one's "worldview".

If this ground exists, then potentially one or the other POV is falsifiable based on interaction with it. Bahnsen's view would appear to be that these two worldviews are incommensurable. If that is true, then there are no grounds for Bahnsen's claims that atheists are wrong, because presuppositionalism cannot demonstrate that.

Furthermore, the presuppositionalist might also object that if atheism and agnosticism are not held to be "worldviews" themselves, they cannot supplant one.

The use of the word "supplant" is unwarranted. If atheists show that gods do not exist, then all aspects of your worldview collapse. Atheism does not attempt to supplant your worldview, but simply to show it incorrect. Atheists do not need to have an answer for the great question of "why?", we only need to show that yours is incorrect.

It is wondeful to see Mal, and BD, and yourself, JP, back and interacting.

Vorkosigan

SeaKayaker

Vorkosigan,

Thanks for the comments.

Well, I (as a Christian) believe that it is impossible to know any fact apart from its relation God. An atheist or agnostic would say that it is possible to know facts apart from their relation to God. On this ground alone, we disagree about the meaning of every fact that we know. However, when demonstrating that dialogue is possible with people of other worldviews, the Christian points out that, according to his worldview, everyone lives in a universe made by God and God’s common grace extends to all people, providing us with common ground. This is not neutral common ground, but it is common ground from which we can reason. This is how the Christian explains the possibility of discourse between those with whom he disagrees.

You are correct in that, without God, Christianity is mere foolishness. However, my argument here is that neutral worldviews do not exist. Thus, as you attack Christianity, you must set up some other belief system; you cannot simply fall back to a neutral position. You cannot function without a worldview, so even if you prove one worldview false you cannot do anything until you find another one. Significantly, as the atheist defends a worldview where there is no god who acts as an ultimate standard of truth, very often the person becomes that standard. Once that happens, he frees himself from having to think in subordination to a greater being, but this comes with responsibilities. If you are the standard of truth, then you have to be able to fulfill that position. In short, you must know everything and have every answer. Thus, the in defending atheistic worldviews, that atheist does have to answer “why.”

Soli Deo Gloria,
SeaKayaker

Vorkosigan

You are correct in that, without God, Christianity is mere foolishness. However, my argument here is that neutral worldviews do not exist.

Neutral with respect to what?

Thus, as you attack Christianity, you must set up some other belief system; you cannot simply fall back to a neutral position.

I don't fall back to a neutral position. I don't need a worldview to attack Christianity, its incoherence and internal contradictions, as well as its nihilism, inhumanity, authoritarianism, and brutality are more than enough to invalidate it. In order to invalidate it, I need merely hold that truth, freedom, coherence and human-centeredness are important values. Many worldviews value those. Rather than "falling back" on a specific worldview, I abstract important principles from many, falling into an alliance with them. Where interests coincide, many worldviews might be aligned.

In any case, atheism is not a worldview, but a single belief shared by numerous worldviews and philosophies.

Significantly, as the atheist defends a worldview where there is no god who acts as an ultimate standard of truth, very often the person becomes that standard.

I've never, ever seen that happen. All the atheists I know adopt a mixture of standards.

In short, you must know everything and have every answer. Thus, the in defending atheistic worldviews, that atheist does have to answer “why.”

In defending her worldview, whatever it is, the atheist does not have to have every answer. She need only show that her answers satisfy criteria -- effectiveness, human-centeredness, love, or whatever -- that Christianity does not, and that the parties involved all share. Completeness is not required or expected.

In attacking Christianity it is not necessary to posit some other worldview, only a set of values shared by the parties involved in the conversation.

Vorkosigan

Koyaanisqatsi

If I may...?

What does this mean? Please deconstruct this platitude and detail precisely what it is you are talking about, because I will bet you dollars to donuts that you're simply regurgitating something you've heard from your indoctrinators without considering exactly what it entails.

No, an atheist would say, "I have no belief in a god or gods" and an agnostic would say, "I have no compelling evidence one way or the other, but I'd love to hear what evidence you've got."

And this is where I suspect you are merely regurgitating your inculcation since we do not disagree that the sun, for example, physically exists and that we orbit it. Those are facts.

You, however, claim that a mystical fairy creature from ancient Middle-Eastern warrior-deity mythology magically created that sun somehow in less than a day.

Unless you're from one of the reformed cult factions, in which case you don't even have that much to go on and claim simply that this mystical fairy creature from ancient Middle Eastern warrior deity mythology was the "first cause" (the one who lit the fuse on the big bang) and that everything else is as the scientists say, which.

Again, that simply makes no sense. God's "grace" provides common ground? What does that mean?

Forgive me, but that's just a mighty convoluted way of saying, "That's the way a christian keeps him or herself from blurting out the one thought that courses through their minds every time they speak, 'I'm right and you're wrong because I'm a believer and destined to eternal life while you're an unbeliever and destined to eternal damnation.'"

You are the one claiming that existence is necessarily dependent upon the factual existence of a supernatural being. Why? What justification do you offer for such a claim?

Please don't just spout ready-made inculcation platitudes, like "Without God, blah blah blah wouldn't exist."

Detail precisely why your concept of god is a necessary being to the exclusion of any other god or non-god scenario, please.

If you do not (or cannot) then you should cease making such a claim, don't you think?

And please don't try and evade the issue by trying to turn it around on the atheist. Regardless of who else may or may not have a burden of proof to support their claims, you still must fulfill your own burden or cease to make the claims.

That assumes christianity has been demonstrated to be "true." It has not.

It is only claimed to be true.

Your argument would only apply if it had been proved that Jesus was God and that this God factually existed. Then and only then would the atheist by the one presenting a counter-claim that requires proof.

Says who?

Atheism: the absence of belief in a god or gods. I don't need to have the answers in order to recognize that fictional creatures from ancient mythologies do not factually exist.

False. I can "do" anything at all. See? Right now I'm typing. I don't need to account for how I exist in order to exist or type or do anything at all.

It is not a requirement of existence, no matter how many times you wish to pretend it is.

And here comes the party line...

Look, it's very simple. I'll explain it to you directly. You have been told that without a father in the sky spying on you who has power over you and absolute knowledge of what you are doing, you can't be a good person.

You are a victim of fear; nothing more, nothing less. Do as you are told and think as you are told and you will be rewarded.

See. You are literally spouting propaganda; thoughts programmed into you. I know because they were the exact same thoughts--word for word--that were programmed into me and every single other cult member, both programmed and deprogrammed out there.

No, you don't as is the case with all of humanity. In case you haven't reallized it yet, there is no "standard of truth," because if there were and your god actually existed in order to mandate it, this world would be paradise.

Oh, nevermind. You have no clue how they've programmed you and won't even begin to get a clue most likely for the entirety of your life.

No, he or she does not. There is no requirement at all for any of us to answer "why" just as there is no requirement at all for you to consciously process oxygen through your body in order to remain alive.

It just isn't a valid argument to make. Simple as that.

Move on.

ishalon

So... Neutrality doesn't exist.

Neither should Christianity.

Jack the Bodiless

Most of the atheists around here are metaphysical naturalists. We "have faith" that there is an actual, real Universe out there which contains much that is "true" independent of our own opinions, but does not require a God to exist or operate.

We did not decree that the Earth orbits the Sun: we found out that it does. We "have faith" that there are many more such God-independent truths that we have NOT yet discovered.

rainbow walking

Hi Seakayaker (hereinafter referred to as SK)
As a recently de-converted Christian, if I may be so bold, methinks you’ve marvelously demonstrated one of the debilitating effects inherent in adopting your worldview: that of dichotomizing rather than minimizing.

Equivocating the presuppositions of theism with the axiomatic principles of naturalism isn’t the driving force behind your claims. As an ex-christian I know how difficult it is not to make everything an either/or proposition. From a Christian’s perspective everything spirals into an us-or-them, for us-or-against us mental arrangement in ones argumentation. And nothing is more contentious to this mental arrangement as the agnostic/weak atheist position.

As a Christian I always preferred addressing my arguments to the atheist who appeared to be arguing from a reciprocal position to my own. I abhorred arguing with the “evidence, evidence, evidence” opponent who reserved judgment until the terms were defined and the evidence was in. Because the agnostic doesn’t take the stand of ruling out god altogether, preferring to place the onus on evidence, his position falls into that gray area with definite leanings towards atheism, but it’s the gray area that casts the biggest shadow on the Christians stance of god/not-god.

It’s an allurement he almost can’t resist and a logical necessity he cannot avoid. Wrapping oneself in a shroud of unsupportable assertions doesn’t bring one closer to reality just because his family and friends have done the same.

There was a time when religion served a purpose in the infancy of human aspirations. When one learns to ride a bicycle it’s a good idea to remove the training wheels. In the age of Trident nuclear subs, space stations and lasers, worldviews that propagate dichotomies, where none need be, are more dangerous than useful.

Neutrality is a straw man. Tolerance isn’t. I think your challenge is driven by the intolerance of that shade of gray in an otherwise black or white system. Because agnosticism evolves from a lack of evidence it is perceived by the theist to stand as a bulwark between him and his intended prey: the atheist.

As a theist I have also seen the results of a closed theistic system. A worldview with no challengers. The spectacle of the various sectarian branches of this worldview always eventually devolving into internally destructive bargaining and bickering among its constituents. This phenomenon shares the same cause: the black or white syndrome. The problem is inherent in the presuppositions. They’re not testable and become a matter of interpretation far more contingent than science or logic. Thus the most popular or powerful spokesperson takes the lead and those who disagree splinter off into opposing sectarian groups. In the opposing ideology of meta-physical naturalism this phenomenon is hindered by the evidence and nature itself. A man can prove his interpretation with evidences to that effect. No such bottom line exists in your worldview and the splintering will continue to foster these dichotomizing tendencies. Eventually the Church may become entirely diffused, impotent and so saturated that it will lose any appeal as a viable originator of a worldview worthy to be considered.

Now let’s address the issue of “neutrality” in examination of worldviews. Your contention is that said neutral exam is impossible from an agnostics PoV. The problem is, the impossibility charge must rest with the theist and not the agnostic. Because the Christians house of cards rests on its “god” it requires one to first accept the proposition that god exists as a true statement before the rest of the world comes into view from this perspective. From a Christians PoV, anyone who attempts to examine the world outside this view is biased. But the problem runs even deeper than just accepting the existence of this god. The major issue is defining this concept as anything meaningful. The Christian accepts the concept as such and proceeds to offer his explanation of the world based on this acceptance, not realizing that his hole card has no FACE value. When it comes time for everyone to put their cards on the table the Christian places a card, his winning card, face up on the table and looks around expecting everyone to concede his winning hand. Only the card he has wagered on has no markings to distinguish it as even a card consistent with the other 51 cards of the deck. If the agnostic is expected to neutrally compare worldviews then the burden rests on the Christian to define the foundation of his worldview in a meaningful way such that the agnostic can have a basis of examination. It isn’t so much the lack of evidence as it is the lack of coherence in determining if any evidence exists to suggest the viability of the concept of a meaningless term. If I say *&^%$#@! Exists and I want to persuade you that my worldview, based on its existence, is meaningful and true, your first question will be, “what is a *&^%$#@!?” If I can’t define it I have no grounds to level a charge against you of bias. I can’t reasonably expect you to conduct a neutral examination of a worldview based on an incomprehensible concept. Before any comparison of worldviews can take place all terms of the propositions must be meaningfully defined.

The question of neutrality may also hinge on the worldview of the examiner at the time of examination. I think many of the atheists and agnostics here had actually, at one time, accepted the possibility of Christianity as probable. Like myself, they likely discovered the inconsistencies and contradictions that eventually led to their abandoning the artifice as probable or even possible. This is also why Christians are encouraged to recruit converts rather than closely examine the concepts of their own system. Used car salesmen rarely ever drive the cars they’re trying to sell.

Jobar

Well stated, Rainbow Walking.

From curiousity, do you consider yourself a weak atheist, strong atheist, or an igtheist (one who does not understand what the word means)?

I personally have said that, for the Christian God, I stand at the dividing line between weak and strong atheism- 99.999...% sure that Yahweh is a complete impossibility. I leave a tiny fractional percent of uncertainty only because of my recognition that I am human and fallible.

For gods other than the Abrahamic, I am agnostic- notably for such god-concepts as Brahma, a god which is identical to the universe, I am inclined to accept the possibility.

Pomp

Nice post, RW!

SanDiegoAtheist

Very...and when did you deconvert RW?

Last time I saw you I was arguing on the opposite side of the fence from you

Back on topic though...

The entire problem with presuppositionalism (which MUST be true for SK's argument against neutrality to hold any weight whatsoever) is that it PRESUPPOSES THE OPPOSING VIEWPOINT in order to show that it's OWN presupposition is true.

You can't 'presuppose' anything about the existance of knowledge without FIRST having knowledge about something. It's impossible...putting the cart before the horse so to speak. The ability to 'know' something is simply a BRUTE FACT. There may be an explanation for 'how' we know something, but the knowledge MUST come first, otherwise you can't even have a thought about 'presuppositionalism' in the first place.

This of course is where presuppositionalism falls down every time - it makes a hidden assumption that knowledge is possible, then uses that knowledge to draw a conclusion (without evidence) that the 'knowledge' somehow requires a God to be extant.

Try to spell "CAT" without using any letters. You can't do it. You're presupposing that the ability to "spell 'CAT' " comes from God, but you must FIRST "presuppose" that letters exist, and that they can be used to construct words such as "CAT". Your entire construct of presuppositionalism rests FIRST upon the same assumptions that metaphysical naturalism rests (that our senses can perceive the world, and that we can draw conclusions based upon these perceptions which are reliable), and only then can you build your edifice of 'presuppositionalism' on top of it. Without knowing something first, you can't possibly speculate on the granter of that knowledge.

EDIT: a bit more explanation...

Your argument goes like this:

1) God exists
2) therefore knowledge exists.

However, you MUST assume 2) FIRST to even be able to CONCEIVE 1). Without knowledge, you can't even conceive of the concept of 'existance' or 'God' or anything else - all concepts, statements, and indeed thought itself MUST presuppose that knowledge exists FIRST in order to make any type of statement, claim, or explanation.

God may be useful to EXPLAIN knowledge, but if you are doing that, you must provide EVIDENCE that God not only CAN explain knowledge, but that it in fact DOES so, and to do this, you must prove God to exist. The fact that the concept of God can provide an internally consistent explanation of knowledge in no way implies that God is the ACTUAL explanation of knowledge, just that it would be consistent. Not all things that are logically possible are in fact existant.


Cheers,

The San Diego Atheist

[ June 14, 2002: Message edited by: SanDiegoAtheist ]</p>