rainbow walking

Like I said above, valid presuppositions must provide a basis for rationality.



That's not a problem at all Kent. The basis of all rationality is life and liberty. These are axiomatic to all presuppositions regardless of their origin. There is no rationality without life and rationality does not co-exist in slavery. Unfortunately the christian presupposition does not support either of these axioms as they are the anti-thesis of servanthood and sacrifice in the name of the christian god.

These are also the basis of a godless moral system that derives its impetus from their observance and application in the setting of any community standard.

The christian god does not extol liberty in its claim that all men are servants either to sin or righteousness. Neither does it extol life as it's claims and doctrine all point to life beyond this one as the supreme value.

But even more damaging to your claim that the christian presuppositions engulf all properties of this universe is the fact that your presupps must borrow from the naturalistic ontology all of its defining characteristics to offer any explanation of the experience. It is not a stand alone viable presupposition that you are claiming and its accomplishment is only to push all properties of this universe into its corner and claim their rational knowability as proof that your presuppositions are true. But rationality and knowability are not spiritual properties and have been shown to be connected to the chemical and nueral workings and structure of the human brain. This is a natural explanation that has been tested and proven.

But the brain does not function without life and does not function properly under the pressure of slavery and even less so under the duress of delusion.

Your presuppositions do not account for life in any rational meaningful way except to say your god created it. It especially does not account for liberty since this is anti-thetical to faith. The only liberty it allows is the transitional mode from one master to another. Yet liberty exists and has allowed for the existence of the greatest nation in the history of man. How do your presuppositions deal with this? A

Additionally your historical narrative, from which your presuppositions have been derived, explicitly condones slavery in the OT and is silent or apathetic to it in the NT. Is slavery one of your gods moral strictures we must embrace?

daemon

Seeing as coherency with a worldview does not make any particular presupposition non-arbitrary nor rational, this is non sequitur.
This is an unsubstantiated assertion. Unless you can provide some further reasoning, you have not explained anything, but simply made your set of axioms more complex.
Interesting assertion. What do you mean by a rational versus an irrational foundation? Do you mean logically derived?
This does not answer the question. Please reread it and ask for clarification if needed.

[ edited to clean up UBB ]

[ September 09, 2002: Message edited by: daemon ]</p>

Kent Symanzik

Hi rainbow,

What you are doing here is defining "good" outside of God. This would apply perhaps to the Greek gods but not the Christian God. Point being, the critique misses the mark because it is based on a faulty conception of the Christian God.

This is an interesting question. God first of course. The highest good is to glorify and honor God. But, this also serves as man's good as well. I believe John Piper stated it like this: "God is most glorified when man is most satified in Him."

This is essentially the same as what we discussed above. The problem is that man does not have an objective basis from which to judge good and evil without the Christian God. In other words, in order to judge the Christian God you must first presuppose him in order to have an objective basis to judge.

This is all coming down to the same problem. You have no objective basis to judge whether God's character is pristine or not.

Can you first establish your objective basis before we continue?

Man was made in God's image but then he fell into sin. That is why he needs a savior.

I do not claim free will.

If man is the measure you have no objective standard to even decide if something is right or wrong. If man is the standard you would not be able to determine fallibility.

You seem to be faulting God for being merciful and patient. If he was not we would not be alive to have this discussion.

If the American constitution is not based on God then it is nothing more than a subjective standard that cannot be rationally defined.

The value of life is extolled in scripture. One's happiness is not antithetical to scripture. In fact, if the Christian God exists then man will be most happy and satisfied when he glorifies God.

Kent

Kent Symanzik

Hi Echo,

I'm glad you jumped in at this point. This is a very good question. Thinking rationally glorifies God because that is the way that God thinks and acts. It might be interesting to read some of the books of the bible looking for logical arguments. They are abundant, especially where doctrine is being explained. I am teaching the book of Hebrews in my Sunday school class and I am amazed at how the author uses very precise logical arguments to make his points.

We also see this in the basic theology of the bible. God is just, holy, merciful, and gracious. So, when man sinned God did not just say, "oh well, I will just overlook it." If he did he would be violating his own just character. That is why he had to do what some people find very strange. He had to make a perfect sacrifice who could take the punishment of man and so satisfy God's justice while at the same time showing man mercy and forgiveness.

My point is that many people find it bizarre that God would require justice but it makes perfect sense when you realize that God is rational and that he cannot violate his own character.

Well, I hope my rambling here has answered your question. Let me know if it did not.

Kent

Kent Symanzik

I guess it depends on where you are coming from. The ten commandments are very relevant to Christians. The ones that you find irrelevant pertain to honoring God.

Some commands in the bible are very specific and can be culturally relevant. But, many of the commands are cross cultural and apply equal well today as when they were given.

The bible can only be seen as incomplete if you do not consider that many of the commands encompass all of life. Jesus summed up the commandments as love God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself.

We may still find answers to some moral questions hard to come by. There are some moral questions that even Christians disagree with eachother one. But, the variable is in the people not in God.

Kent

Keith Russell

Kent:

You've still ignored me, but please don't return saying that those who advocate atheistic absolutes have not spoken.

I have!

Keith.

Keith Russell

Kent said:
"We may still find answers to some moral questions hard to come by. There are some moral questions that even Christians disagree with eachother one. But, the variable is in the people not in God."

Well, it would have to be, wouldn't it!

Keith.

rainbow walking

Hi rainbow,

Hello Kent. Thank you for your kind response.
Kent: What you are doing here is defining "good" outside of God.

Rw: Yes, that is true Kent. I am trying to understand how a person who doesn’t know god could make a value judgment that accepting god is a good thing before they know this god when your presuppositions hold that no basis for such a valuation can exist outside of this god whom they do not yet know.

Kent: This would apply perhaps to the Greek gods but not the Christian God. Point being, the critique misses the mark because it is based on a faulty conception of the Christian God.
Rw: Then please enlighten me as to the fault in my conception.


rw: Would you say the word of god represents what is best/good for humanity or for god?

Kent: This is an interesting question. God first of course. The highest good is to glorify and honor God.

Rw: What makes that the highest good and why does god require this from humans?

Kent: But, this also serves as man's good as well. I believe John Piper stated it like this: "God is most glorified when man is most satified in Him."

Rw: Can you be more specific as to what precise good this serves for man? I’m really curious as to your take on why such an omnimax being requires glorification? Or maybe “requires” isn’t the proper term here. Should I say “expects” it? How does glorification fit into the scheme of your god’s plans?



rw: Not really, at least, that’s not the way I read it. What he appears to be saying is that a person considering whether to accept the bible as the source of an objective good must have some basic concepts of good and evil from which to base his decision.

Kent: This is essentially the same as what we discussed above. The problem is that man does not have an objective basis from which to judge good and evil without the Christian God. In other words, in order to judge the Christian God you must first presuppose him in order to have an objective basis to judge.

Rw: Then someone who hasn’t had the opportunity to presuppose him has not made an objective judgment when they decide to accept him as their savior? How does god figure in as the objective factor in man’s value judgments? When a man is presented the gospel isn’t it presented as something for his own subjective good? When you offer a man eternal life and un-earned, un-deserved imputed righteousness aren’t you appealing to his subjective value of good before he knows god? When he accepts Jesus as his personal savior doesn’t he do so in expectation of receiving a reward that he has adjudged to be subjectively personally good for him? Aren’t people persuaded to follow Jesus for reasons that ultimately benefit them personally? I’m trying to ascertain where objectivity figures into the picture here Kent, prior to a man’s decision to accept god. Even if a man presupposes that such a being exists prior to accepting lordship over his life, that doesn’t automatically download a new set of standards into his psyche does it? The point is, if men do not know what good is without presupposing god, how are men persuaded to believe in god? They must have some measure of understanding good before they will choose god unless their choice is based on something other than good. I can’t think of another reason men would alter the course of their lives unless they believed such alteration was somehow good for them subjectively. And in order to make this choice they must have some basis of knowing good vs. evil prior to knowing god. So your claim here is suspect in the aggregate and fails in the particulars immediately.

rw: Unfortunately this character doesn’t come shining through as the pristine example you appear to want us to see.

Kent: This is all coming down to the same problem. You have no objective basis to judge whether God's character is pristine or not.

Rw: You are right Kent, I can’t make a character assessment from an objective position, only a subjective one. My subjective moral compass is founded on experience and my experience tells me that what I read, especially in the OT, about this god is not good nor conducive to the kind of relationship I would desire with someone much more powerful than I. I have never experienced, observed, nor seen any objective good that exists independent of the man who is called upon to make a moral choice. Morals are internalized beliefs about what is beneficial to the furtherance of ones life and what is not. These beliefs are bolstered by the consequences when one makes a choice. This experience is further internalized until a foundational set of moral perspectives emerge. All along the way these subjective experiences are accessed when circumstances warrant it and put to the test. There is no objective external forces at work here. Men always act in their own self interests regardless of the cloth they sew around them, even and especially in cases of altruistic or sacrificial gestures. Not a single martyr would have ever submitted to death unless he subjectively believed that death would grant him access to greater personal rewards.

Kent: Can you first establish your objective basis before we continue?

Rw: I hope I’ve adequately responded to why this request is a non sequiter.


Kent: Man was made in God's image but then he fell into sin. That is why he needs a savior.

Rw: Then are you saying that god’s image is of such a nature that god himself could fall into sin? It seems strange to me how a duplicate of a perfect being could be less than perfect especially when it is posited that the perfect being created the duplicate. If a perfect being did anything it would have to be perfect, wouldn’t it, else the perfect being is not perfect. Why does god not need a savior? Or has not fallen into sin? If he is perfect, (and I’m assuming that would be one of his attributes that you’d likely posit but you can correct me if I’m wrong), then his image must also bear this attribute, or so I would think it reasonable to assume, so how is man, having been created by this perfect being in his perfect image, somehow susceptible to falling into sin?


Kent: I do not claim free will.

Rw: I see. Then you adhere to the Calvinistic doctrine?



rw: Finitude doesn’t exclude man’s ability to learn and pass on his knowledge, making it unnecessary to re-invent the wheel. Fallibility also fails to negate man’s responsibility to decide what is right and wrong. In fact, without the possibility of getting it wrong, man would have no need of moral strictures at all. If the Christian god actually ENFORCED these alleged morals you might have a basis for these claims, but since it has always been observed that men do the interpreting, deciding and enforcing, I fail to see any reason to give this deity any credit.

Kent: If man is the measure you have no objective standard to even decide if something is right or wrong. If man is the standard you would not be able to determine fallibility.

Rw: This would only be true if man were not rational and there was no such thing as consequences/cause/effect. Man needn’t adhere to any standard but his own where this does not instantiate detrimental consequences. Where it does, man’s rational abilities allow him to learn and improve his standardization of behavioral responses in any given situation. When a man fails to apply his rationality he continues to experience adverse consequences along with those affiliated with him. It’s called the learning curve and it can be generationally transmitted.

Kent: You seem to be faulting God for being merciful and patient. If he was not we would not be alive to have this discussion.

Rw: Actually Kent, since I don’t believe such a being exists, it’s not this god I’m faulting but those who extol his character as if it were virtuous when even a precursory reading of the bible does not communicate this claim. It goes towards further demonstrating the absolute subjectiveness involved in assigning value to anything. You find these qualities in your interpretations of the bible because you have invested your intellectual integrity in their absolutely being true. I say this because you continually plead presupposition, meaning you have presupposed truth and then found the text and experiential interpretations to support the presuppositions. I am one who must find the truth before I allow it the status of a presuppositional implant in my intellect. That’s probably why we reside on opposite sides of the fence on this issue. We may likely have lots of other things in common in areas outside of religion.



rw: Well, I think I understand where you’re coming from. If I haven’t, then you can correct me where I’ve mis-placed your meaning. It isn’t enough just to say that the Christian version of a god is necessary for human morality and rationality. It is quite reasonable for non-believers to request some logical argumentation to support these claims. If they are true it is also quite reasonable to expect those who claim them to be far more logical and rational than those of us who do not believe such a being exists. For instance, it is quite rational to derive ones morality from the basic tenets of the American constitution: Life, liberty and the pursuit of ones happiness, by allowing the Democratic process to establish the legal boundaries of ones pursuits. Neither the value of life or liberty are virtues extolled in scripture and the pursuit of ones own happiness is anti-thetical to its primary doctrines…yes?

Kent: If the American constitution is not based on God then it is nothing more than a subjective standard that cannot be rationally defined.

Rw: The American constitution is a subjective interpretation of how men believe the rationally derived axioms of life and liberty are to be best served among men. I do not understand how you can say that it cannot be rationally defined? It is rationally defined, tested, improved and sometimes regressed everyday in courts, on the battlefield, and in the halls of our government. It has stood the test of revolution, two world wars, countless internal infractions and external enemies from every section of mankind for over two hundred years. If that isn’t enough to prove rational imperative then nothing in this universe can be said to be rational and we both may as well shut up and close our computer screens. Life and liberty are the twin imperatives consistent with human nature, they are self evident and universal for all men everywhere for all time. That is about as objective as you can get because man is the object and the investment is returned in innumerable value across the board. Man doesn’t need or require an external source to set his moral compass, just the life and liberty to work it out himself, as we have been doing now for many, many years, sometimes in spite of the church and sometimes in unison with it.

Your claim that god is the objective standard requires us to examine more closely its machinations to determine its validity. To make this determination one need only consider the object. Since god is the object here one then must ask how this serves the best interests of man? It is quite revealing to me that both Jesus, Paul, John and Peter all held that man was the chattel of either god or satan. There is no mention of man as an autonomous individual and any behavior was judged to be motivated by his choice of masters. This also supports something other than man as the object. How then does man benefit? Which of the alluded morals do you propose we accept as being grounded in god that we cannot also adopt without god? The moral dictates prescribed by your presuppositions are impossible to practice. That is why all men are sinners. How does this benefit man? How does this impact mankind’s view of itself?

Kent: The value of life is extolled in scripture.

Rw: More than the after-life? Could you please refer me to chapter and verse where this is stated or implied? How does this figure into the flood account in Genesis? I have seen where scripture claims that god deemed certain individuals valuable enough to bless and save from certain death but I have yet to find any indication that this is applicable universally across the board for all people. Isn’t it true that the bible is primarily concerned about a spiritual life more than a temporal one?

Kent: One's happiness is not antithetical to scripture. In fact, if the Christian God exists then man will be most happy and satisfied when he glorifies God.

Rw: That is your subjective opinion Kent and one which you are entitled to if you live in America. It is your right and freedom purchased by the blood and determination of our predecessors who found it in their own subjective best interests to defend and honor their lives and liberty by securing and defending them against every challenger regardless of their religious beliefs or lack of same. If the Christian god doesn’t exist men will be no less happy because many men do exist who do not adhere to any religious claims and yet find as much about life to make them happy as those who revel in the anticipation of an after-life find in theirs.

In the bible the challenge was always and everywhere one of prosyletizing. All men believed in some god or another. Here, in this forum, you face a different challenge that the bible has ill equipped you for. The men and women here are beyond that separating line of despair and are challenging you on the very epistemological foundations you deem are necessary to rational thought, and their challenges are both rational and logically derived. How can this be? You will have to change your tact here because presupposionalism only works above the ontological level on minds that have already been persuaded that a god exists and only require further pressure to surrender to its edicts.

Jack the Bodiless

But it is a false basis. It fails the test of empiricism, the most fundamental test of truth. No amount of mere assertion will make us believe that the sky is red: similarly, no amount of mere assertion will make us believe that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, the fossil record does not exist, and so forth.

It also fails to provide a basis for morality. For instance, as a secular humanist, I can state that the punishment of innocents for the crimes of others is morally wrong in all cases. A Christian cannot do this: the entire religion is based upon the punishment of innocents for the crimes of others, a system that we intuitively feel to be immoral due to our evolved feeling that "the punishment should fit the crime".

Similarly, Christians have never managed to come up with a satisfactory explanation for why an allegedly omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent God should allow suffering to exist. All attempts at theodicies involve desperate handwaving and flawed analogies which ultimately involve removing God's omnipotence, omnibenevolence, or both. Hence the need for appeals to mystery: "I don't know why this is the case, but I have faith that it's all OK". That is not a rational basis for anything at all!
Yes, we have: EVOLUTION.

We live in an ordered Universe. We have evolved to function within that Universe. Logic is part of the modelling system that we have evolved to aid our own survival within this ordered Universe. That is why logic itself is orderly.

You are asking the wrong question. It's like asserting that "no one has yet shown how you can get houses from bricks". The evolution of logic in life-forms operating within an orderly Universe is not a problem. A more interesting question is "why is the Universe orderly?". We have no answer to that (as yet), but neither do you have an explanation of why your God is (allegedly) orderly. The "it's his nature" handwaving can also be applied to the Universe.

babelfish

Kent, first of all, I want to tell you I admire your tenacity, as well as your politeness. You have put a great deal of effort into replying to everyone who has posted on this thread, and I for one appreciate that very much. Since we get so few Christians on this board who are willing to do this as coolly as you have, you are truly to be commended.

If you care to indulge me further, I have a few more questions for you, if you haven't grown tired of being tag-teamed by all of us yet:

You say that God is the being who provides your morals, and that Christianity provides the best moral standard in your opinion. So:

1. Do you think any morality was evident in say, ancient Greece, or Egypt, or Rome?

2. Is morality evident today in countries such as say, Japan, where the constitution is not based upon Christianity (as you assert our US Constitution is)?

3. If you were to go to Africa and live amongst a tribe of animists or pantheists, and you were to witness the tribes-people behaving in a moral way towards one another, would you chalk this up to the Christian God being active in their lives without their knowledge?