Kris

Steven Carr,
You still have not justified logic, reasoning, morality, and inducation in your worldview. You have spent your time attacking what I say and trying to give justification why you don't need to justify those things you use in your life. You asked me a question and I gave you an answer. It may not have been the answer you agree with but I gave you justification when you asked for it. You have yet to do the same.

So far you have proven Bahnsen right when he indicated that Atheists live by blind faith.

Try explaining the nature of reality to truth without circularity.

Does anyone have a possitive response?

Steven Carr, you seems to be upset at me though you have done all the insulting. I can only guess that you are angry because I am a Christian yet you can not justify those things that make it possible for you to call me wrong. You seem to have this double standard in which everything I say needs to be justified and yet you do not need to justify anything. Do you know what people are called who live by a double standard?

You spoke harshly of my assumptions of what naturalism believes and yet I remember you speaking about how your fellow Atheists shouldn't hold their breath for an answer to your questions because we are trained not to attempt to answer. How should we take that assumption.

You have not justified the existence of this naturalistic logic yet. I would very much like to know what it is and how you justify its existence.

I was giving you the benifit of the doubt. If the universe doesn't work by random processes please tell me who or what gives it its purpose? Random is, to not have a purpose or objective.
You indicate that you, being an Atheist, believe that natural laws don't exist. If I believe that air doesn't exist does that stop me from breathing? I think you should evaluate what you are really saying.

I appreciate the time you are spending in this conversation but I am not going to get into a mud throwing contest with you. If you bring up a good point or have something meaningful to say about the subject I will be more than happy to respond but responding to insults isn't worth my time. I do not hold a grudge against you or dislike you in any way. I just disagree with you.

Thanks again for your replies.
Kris

[ May 28, 2002: Message edited by: Kris ]</p>

Steven Carr

I don't need to justify them.

Gosh, even theists like Lewis Carroll (the Reverend Charles Dodgson) wrote satires making fun of people who try to 'justify' logic (see Godel, Escher, Bach by Hofstadter for examples), yet presuppers seem not to know anything from after 1800.

Theistic worldviews are totally inconsistent as they insist that their senses are under attack by demons and Satans, yet they claim that their senses are reliable. Go figure!

And then they also claim that nature follows regular laws, guaranteed by God, while claiming that miracles can happen when these laws are broken. Baffling!

I hate the hypocrisy of people with huge holes in their beliefs saying that atheists cannot justify logic, as though that was a big problem.

Hypocrisy is guaranteed to make me angry.

Vorkosigan

Actually, everyone makes assertions. The only way you can get around defending an assertion is if you claim ignorance and even that is an assertion of what you don't know. Burden of proof lies with anyone making any assertion. It seems strange for someone who clings to science and proof so strongly to disregard a need to prove ones assertions.

All I said was, the burden of proof is on those who assert that a particular fiction actually exists and is the ruler of all reality. If you claimed Frodo actually existed, I would expect evidence. Why is the burden on me when you assert that the Canaanite sky god Ya exists?

I am glad to hear that, though it confuses me as to how you can be familiar with his arguments and still make some of the claims you do.

Like both Jack and I said, Van Til does not make any arguments in the way that we are conventionally accustomed to arguments being made. That is why we can be familiar with Van Til, yet reject his assertions.

I would like to know how you can justify objective morals without God.

I am not an objective moralist. But Michael Martin, a philosopher who is, has many articles here at Infidels. Of course, you are probably familiar with the works of Ayn Rand, another thinker who is also an atheist and an objective moralist.

Well I have learned something. I didn't know about the jumping spiders of the genus portia. This does not explain how logic is justified and explained within your worldview. I know logic exists. Explain how it can exists within an atheist universe.

What kind of atheist universe? A Buddhist one? A Confucian one? A panthiestic one? Not all atheists are metaphysical naturalists.

Here is what we hate. You roar in here, expecting that we must justify what is well-known to anyone who has done basic reading on the issues. Now, I suggest you go back to my previous post, read the Primer on Evolutionary Psychology where it explains clearly about complex social behavior and the evolution of logic, and get back to me when you have some cogent criticisms. I have already given you a thumbnail explanation; human reasoning abilities are extensions of extant reasoning powers found throughout the animal kingdom. We reason because we're evolved to think in certain ways.

Again, I see that it is possible to do however I do not see your justification for it. It is my contention that you must borrow from my worldview to do such things because your worldview can not account for objective morality. If I am wrong please justify how objective morality can exist within your worldview.

Well, I claimed suttee was wrong. I am not an objective moralist, so no need to provide an objective morality. I think it is wrong because it is killing, and killing is wrong. It is mistreatment of women, and that is wrong (and no, I couldn't have borrowed that from your misogynistic belief system). I think those two are sufficient reasons that would convince many people. If you disagree, I'd be happy to discuss.

Of course, suttee is based on absolute morality, you know. If morality is really absolute, how come there are so many different kinds of "absolute" moralities?

You just indicated that it is your belief that "Suttee is evil." You just made a judgement. Ask yourself why it is nessesary to judge. If someone kills your mother or brother do you feel a need to make a judgement.

Why no. First, like any reasoning individual, I try to figure out what the hell happened before I pass judgement.

Was it our place to judge the actions of Hitler?

Of course. Do you believe that we should have ignored him? Though Christian Churches largely did, you know, except for the Lutherans and the Catholics, who were busy helping him.

Why? If right and wrong are reduced to mire opinion why should anyone condemn something like rape?

Dunno. Do you want to live in a society where rape is prevalent? I have, and I didn't think it was a good thing.

You seem to think that people would just behave uncontrollably without a fairy sky daddy. But the reverse is actually the case: the less theistic a country is, the lower its rates of out-of-wedlock births to teenagers, crime, etc. etc. etc.

Most people behave properly because it is in their long-term interest to do so; when they don't, we lock them up.

I do not believe rape is a neutral act and I condemn it but I have an absolute standard in which I can justify condemning it.

Well, you certainly think you do. But as far as I can see, your only standard is an arbitrary belief that the moral ideals of a fuedal hill kingdom is Right. Just like my arbitrary belief in my culture and upbringing, and personal judgement. The difference is I can learn from errors, and grow. You are forever stuck with your morality.

It isn't, how I can explain these things but how can the Atheist? You need to explain how an Atheist can do these things because again it is my contention that you must borrow from my worldview to do such things because your worldview can not account for them. I could be wrong but I have not heard anything justifying them within an Atheistic worldview.

You may "contend" all you want, but Kris, until you provide evidence that I need a fairy sky daddy to tell right from wrong, you are simply making meaningless noise. I could "contend" that your morals come from a giant purple dragon orbiting Jupiter, but until I provide evidence backed by reason, no one will pay the slightest attention. Nor should they.

Atheists get their morals from the same place you do. From their evolutionary background, parents, their society, their own thinking, examples from other cultures, and so on.

Because you have to be able to justify why you are right. If no absolute standard exists then nothing is trully wrong and nothing is right.

Commonly said, and completely wrong. If I declare something wrong than it is "truly" wrong -- whatever the hell that means. There isn't any "truly wrong" out there. I don't need to "justify" anything. All I need is the ability to explain to you why I think you are wrong, and to listen and empathize with your response.

Your absolute standard is totally subjective. What's your definition of "objective?" Do you have an "objective" definition of "objective" that allows you to choose what the right standard of "objective" is? Note that Christians cannot even agree what the "absolute" morals are, they all have subjective judgements about the meaning of "objective." I'll give you a hint: there is no "objective" meaning of "objective."

That is why, in the end, Van Til simply screams "God Exists!" and is done with it. There is no exit from the subjectivity trap, so Van Til simply goes all the way and says "I am simply going to assert, on a completely subjective basis, that the Canaanite sky god Ya is the one true god." Pre-suppositionalism isn't a presupposition; rather, it is total subjectivity. It is subjectivity raised to the Nth power. That is why most Christians reject presup; they fully understand that there is no rational basis for it.

Anyone can make a presup about any god. On what grounds does Van Til choose his god over some other? The Hindus and Buddhists, after all, have a much more elaborate, well-thought out and philosophically robust theological and moral posture. So why didn't Van Til choose them? There is no reason to choose a particular pre-sup. It's arbitrary and subjective.

The purpose of an absolute morality is power and control, Kris. Its purpose is authoritarian control of the minds and bodies of others. Why do you think people with absolute moralities -- Christians, Marxists, Muslims -- spend so much time killing others? How come the North Texas Church of Freethought never makes guerilla raids on the Austin Community Atheists?

You can not justify why your belief is better than that of someone who feels torture is great.

I don't need to. Most people agree that torture sucks, and I can confidently count on their backing for taking swift action to end torture. I don't need any other basis for action; morals exist in networks of values, and in the relationships between ourselves and our society. Why should I need to consult some book of fairy tales and ancient history to determine what is right and wrong?

I am sorry but this is not correct. The laws account for the order yes but that isn't the point. You still need to account for laws within your naturalistic universe.

How are such laws accounted for in a Theistic universe? By waving a wand and going "poof!" godidit. Kris, that's the opposite of an accounting, that's an upfront refusal to account.

If you want to read about how natural laws and the universe are related, I am sure someone around here can give you a booklist. Not that I expect you to read it, really.

I tend to argue against the Atheistic worldview that seems more internally consistent.

Well, thanks for the vote of consistency.

Peace be with you all and may your lifes pursuits lead you to happiness and a sense of fulfillment.

Actually, I'd just settle for stable income and three weeks on the beach in Bali every once in a while.

Vorkosigan

tempest

Presuppositionist, Theist, Pantheist - Idon't know what to call myself, but I see room for God in this wonderful place we call downtown America.

Certain experiences, like the soup we drink for dinner when we are sick with the flu, are too thick with substance to deny all possibility of existence.

My detachment from the truth does not nullify "truth". It seems to me that it is easier to explain Truth, Beauty, Goodness and God then it is to explain fractured self.

I just see beauty and objectivity as thick and textured. Abstract mental concepts are closest to my being. Light waves, quantum physics, and moelcular biology - these disappear in my grasp every ten years or so.

So, something must be made of "thingness" as it continues to hold our attention, even though we won't agree on an objective definition of "objective definition".

This is why I see room for God. It's all based on faith, so perhaps God knows something about the nature of science and truth - it boils down to another substance besides "material fact" - perhaps facts are always mixed with 'beauty' or 'goodness' and so the weight of an atom is most truly known by faith and not by scale.

It's a bitch.

Jack the Bodiless

...So what is it? It isn't the Bible!

There is no absolute Biblical condemnation of rape. Rape is treated as a crime against a man: the husband or father of the victim. If a married woman is raped, both the rapist and the victim are put to death unless the woman either cries out or can demonstrate that nobody would have heard her cries. If a young woman is raped, that's OK if the rapist compensates the father for the theft of his daughter's virginity and forces her to marry him.

If a woman has no surviving male guardian, rape is fine. Virgins are listed as war booty in the Bible.

Would you care to reconsider your choice of example, Kris?

If you think that rape is wrong despite what the Bible says, then maybe you should reconsider where your moral values are actually coming from.

Kyle Smyth

Kris-
"I would like to know how you can justify objective morals without God."
"Was it our place to judge the actions of Hitler? Why? If right and wrong are reduced to mire opinion why should anyone condemn something like rape?"

It seems to me that the entire premise of presupposition relies on the idea that an atheist cannot answer these questions. If an atheist could answer these questions, without reference to the supernatural then the assertion that 'not theism' is incapable of logical thought would be proven false. It has been mentioned previous to this post that an evolved empathy could easily account for moral standards without presupposing a god, I will attempt to use an 'evolved empathy theory' to answer the two questions posited above.

Issue 1-Hitler

Hitler aggressively sought out to exterminate (in the most literal sense one can impart) alternate viewpoints. From a cognitive standpoint we had the right to judge him simply because it was very logical to assume that no matter what he said today that it is very likely that we would be on the chopping block the next day, thus Hitler could be judged absent reference to the supernatural simply because it was logical to assume that we were being threatened. On a more biological level Hitler represented a backwards step. In recent human history (especially with the advent of the metaphor and philosophy of the great melting pot of the Americas) human expansion is no longer a predominantly racial equation. A good mate is no longer defined by a narrow set of physical criteria hashed out by our gut or clear-cut dominance games, but a complex set of social codes that vary greatly form individual to individual. The ideal best mate has changed form the 'most fit' to the 'most well adjusted'. Correspondingly evolved human morality (which is a function of social evolution and thus subject to change at a MUCH greater pace then the term evolution implies) would demand that Hitler?s attempt to make what you look like the defining criteria for survival and breeding would be repugnant to a society that had spent hundreds of years erasing many of those barriers. The reason that our society was striving to change those barriers does not require a god, but was simply a manifestation of the tendency for humanity to adapt to its surroundings when it cannot adapt its surroundings to humanity. The increase of many different races and ethnicities co-existing plus the change of spousal requirements means that looks and lineage would become less and less important. At that point Hitler?s philosophy becomes morally repugnant on the basis of an evolved empathy theory.

Issue 2-Rape

This one is easy. If you cannot get your genes into the gene pool by proving yourself as a viable mate, but instead force them though the shortcut of rape then you are cheating all those that are not taking part of that shout cut, you are cheating the extension of a linage (thus offending greatly all within it), you are endangering the possibility that the victim will be allowed or able to function well in a reproductive and social sense, and any act of violence is deemed as dangerous, hurtful, and indicative of a tendency of violence, thus proving that you are a risk to the community. I don't need god to tell me rape is wrong.

Now, I believe that those two questions provide very good examples of universal morals that are derived not form god but rather form a social evolved morality (which is probably what created god in the first place). Since I have answered those questions out side the context of god and explained their origin in the natural world to the best of my ability, I think I can now go on to say that the idea that god needs to be presupposed for rational or moral thought to be quite the flawed construct.

One final thought, if I did not believe that rape or Hitler was wrong, would that make me an immoral or illogical person?

Edited to correct formatting

[ May 28, 2002: Message edited by: Kyle Smyth ]</p>

MaxMainspring

This is a very good summation of the root motivation for all religion and most particularly for the fundamentalist approach. It is based on a patriarchcal worldview within which every beneficience stems from the distant, powerful father figure who is the source of all dispensation and validation.

And incidentally, I believe, this goes a long way to explain why the fundamentalist is so intractably opposed to evolution. The usual reason given is that if evolution were true then it would invalidate the scriptural foundations of their belief. But, it is clear, given the mental gymnastics we see in these threads that any such difficulty could easily be "harmonized" away.

Rather it is the necessity for reverential deference toward their paternal ancestry that motivates this fanatical belief system that must be justified at all cost. The idea that "animals" might be part of their lineage would disrupt the whole fabric of their self-worth and would undermine the foundation of their sense of identity.

As you so rightly observe, theistic presuppositionalism issues from the need to subjugate the autonomy of the self to the will of the father figure.

But, of course, no presup would agree and would merely say that it is impossible for the outsider to understand.

[ May 28, 2002: Message edited by: MaxMainspring ]</p>

madmax2976

<strong> Like many worldviews, including that of the presuppositionalist, naturalism is a foundational worldview. Thus it holds to certain axioms. By definition an axiom is not something that is “justified”. It seems strange that any presup would attack naturalists/atheists for doing that which they do themselves. That’s defined as hypocrisy.

Or perhaps it is just their poor understanding of naturalism that leads them to believe there is a problem. I’ll give you the benefit of a doubt and go with that.

<strong> As a subjective moralist I wouldn’t even try. But I would like to know how a presup justifies objective morals even with a God. Starting with a definition of an objective moral would be nice.

<strong> Logic “exists”? Please tell me under what tree or rock I can find it. This should be interesting. I suspect your using the term “exist” differently.

<strong> [quote]
Again, I see that it is possible to do however I do not see your justification for it. It is my contention that you must borrow from my worldview to do such things because your worldview can not account for objective morality. If I am wrong please justify how objective morality can exist within your worldview.
</strong>[quote]

On the contrary, Christian presuppositionalists must borrow from the naturalistic worldview to even make their arguments. Without the naturalistic presumption that your senses are telling you something real about the world, you can’t read, speak, write, think or communicate in any way.

<strong>This is erroneously forcing Christian presuppositionalist (CP) thought into the naturalistic worldview. We “judge” everything. Usually based on how it will or does affect us or those we care about. There is no “place” about it. CPists must borrow from naturalism in order to judge what the outcome of actions will be in order to define them as moral or immoral. If rape held no undesirable outcomes, there’d be no reason to condemn it.

<strong> [quote]
If right and wrong are reduced to mire opinion why should anyone condemn something like rape?
</strong>According to Christian presuppositionalism we “have” to do this? Since CPism is meaningless to us, I don’t know why you would think we would care what a CPist would mandate that we must do.

<strong> If by “truly” you mean “objectively” or “absolutely” right or wrong, your only stating the obvious. If you mean that things are not really right or wrong TO individuals who hold them as right or wrong, then your just calling us liars. We could just as easily call you a liar as well. For instance, I suspect you know that Christian presuppositional arguments are inept, but you just refuse to accept it. Your are blinded by your own self-indoctrination.

<strong> Since “better” itself is subjective, your question is again meaningless, particularly since I suspect your using “better” in an objective sense. Again, the fact that CPism and naturalism are different is hardly suprising. I don’t know why you would expect them to be the same or why you would judge them as though they had the same standards.

<strong> Certainly we can. We’re just not arrogant enough to believe our justification is an objective fact about reality.

<strong> And I think you condemn actions because of the naturalistic outcomes. Without those, condemning any action would be meaningless. You just want your opinion and view of things to be held as absolute, so you use a misguided apologetic called CPism in order to reign everyone in under your view of right and wrong, regardless of outcomes. A covert attempt to gain more power and control over the lives of others.

<strong> Please tell me under which rock or tree a “law” is found. Perhaps you can draw a picture of one and post it here in the forum. Your comments suggest you don’t even know what a law is.

Under naturalism, a law is a description of how things work and function. They describe how “matter in motion” operates in its multitude of combinations and types. They are not entities unto themselves.

Now the question becomes, “Why do things work and function they way they do?”. You will no doubt say that your deity made them function that way. An assertion without support. I prefer to be honest and admit that I don’t know. I don’t even know if they could function some other way. Perhaps not very enlightening, but at least it’s the truth.

DRFseven

Jeez, I thought presupp could be ANY argument where one posits an unproven assumption to see if the results at hand could be explained by it. Like electrons. The argument went, "If they exist, that would explain this stuff we see, so we assume that electrons, in fact, exist."

I've never thought formulators of presupp arguments were implying that their theory proved anything; only that it was, at least, not disproved and that what is, in fact, in evidence seems to corroborate such a theory.

I don't agree with the God presupp, but I see the point in advancing a presupp.

MaxMainspring

I think the claim is that no proof is possible or necessary. They maintain that without their particular presupposition all confidence in a worldview must break down because there is no grounding for logic or, indeed, any epistimology.

This is different from the physicist, for example, who tentatively accepts the "existence" of electrons because they explain things formerly unexplained and their existence makes possible a view of the world that is more precise and coherent than it was prior to the postulation of these particles with their myriad characteristics.

There is no presupposition of electrons by the naturalistic thinker, rather, there is an integration of the concept of electrons into a more coherent picture of the world.

The presuppositionist says that without the God concept, this, and all, conversation is meaningless. This is a whole different animal from the physicist's acceptance of electrons as useful entities to explain observed reality.