Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Keith Russell · 09-06-2002, 08:33 AM

Kent said:
"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."

Kent, this is only a statement, actually an unsupported claim. You offer no evidence to support this statement, no facts I can check to determine its validity. You give no reason why anyone should believe you.

Do you really believe that unsupported claims are effective?

Kent continues:
"I will try to explain myself better. God's will is the definition of good which conforms to his holy and just character."

Kent, this is not an explanation; it is another unsupported claim.

Saying 'God exists', 'I know God exists', 'God's will exists' and 'God did this or that', are not answers--

--neither are they arguments.

Keith.

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

Kent Symanzik · 09-06-2002, 08:44 AM

Hi Typhon,

Quote:

Originally posted by Typhon:
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.

I think we have been talking about two different things. Anyway, let's assume for the sake of argument, that you have proved that morality exists and there is no God. My point is that if that is the case then ethics are meaningless.

Further, let's assume that you are correct that all ethical values stem from the process of evolution and that these values have evolved in order to best reach the goal of evolution. What is the goal of evolution? Is it survival? If it is survival then we could say that ethical values have evolved in such a way to help the human species survive.

At this point our ultimate foundation for ethical values is survival. So, now we must ask what makes survival actually good? Survival in an athiestic worldview is nothing more than a particular grouping of chemicals (that we call the human body) existing. What is good about that? Why is that better then the chemicals existing in another form?

Can you see what I am driving at? I'm trying to make the point that atheistic worldviews are meaningless at their foundation. And therefore, there can be no meaning at all.

Kent

Kent Symanzik · 09-06-2002, 08:48 AM

Hi Keith,

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith Russell:
[QB]Kent said:
"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."

Kent, this is only a statement, actually an unsupported claim. You offer no evidence to support this statement, no facts I can check to determine its validity. You give no reason why anyone should believe you.

Do you really believe that unsupported claims are effective?

Kent continues:
"I will try to explain myself better. God's will is the definition of good which conforms to his holy and just character."

Kent, this is not an explanation; it is another unsupported claim.

Saying 'God exists', 'I know God exists', 'God's will exists' and 'God did this or that', are not answers--

--neither are they arguments.

I think you have missed what my argument is. I do not always restate my argument in every post. My argument is that without presupposing the Christian God you can have no epistomological foundation at all that is not arbitrary and irrational. We all must presuppose a starting point. The question becomes whether our presuppositions provide the rational foundation that we need for epistomology, ethics, science, etc.

In the post that you responded to I was just trying to explain what my presupposition is. I did not restart my argument there so I can understand how you would miss it.

Kent

Marz Blak · 09-06-2002, 08:56 AM

Kent--

You said, "...My argument is that without presupposing the Christian God you can have no epistomological foundation at all that is not arbitrary and irrational...."

I believe I and others have stated arguments in opposition to this thesis. You have since repeated this thesis without responding to the stated objections to show why they are invalid.

Keith Russell · 09-06-2002, 09:08 AM

Kent:

I've read several of your posts, although I cannot speak for them all. I have yet to see anything remotely like an argument in the posts of yours that I have read.

You have claimed that 'evidence' for God's existence is 'revelational'. This means that it is 'subjective'--not objective. You cannot share this 'revelation' with anyone else, yet rational beliefs can only be based on evidence.

Without that evidence, no rational person has any reason to believe your claims.

Keith.

daemon · 09-06-2002, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Kent Symanzik: My argument is that without presupposing the Christian God you can have no epistomological foundation at all that is not arbitrary and irrational.

Wait, wait, wait. If this is the case, how is presupposing the Christian God not arbitrary and irrational? How is a non-theistic foundation not in accord with reason?

Quote:

Kent Symanzik: We all must presuppose a starting point. The question becomes whether our presuppositions provide the rational foundation that we need for epistomology, ethics, science, etc.

How would you know if a set of presuppositions/axioms was rationally justified?

Kent Symanzik · 09-06-2002, 12:08 PM

Hi Marz,

Quote:

Originally posted by Marz Blak:
You said, "...My argument is that without presupposing the Christian God you can have no epistomological foundation at all that is not arbitrary and irrational...."

I believe I and others have stated arguments in opposition to this thesis. You have since repeated this thesis without responding to the stated objections to show why they are invalid.

As far as I can tell I did respond to your post. Maybe you can repost what you think I did not respond to. It is hard for me to keep track but I do make a diligent effort not to leave anyone hanging.

Kent

Kent Symanzik · 09-06-2002, 12:18 PM

Hello babelfish,

Quote:

Originally posted by babelfish:
<strong>Sorry to jump in so extremely late.

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!</strong>

This is a good question. What you are saying is that without a higher authority to judge what God calls good or evil, God can make good or evil whatever he wants. The problem here is that all you have done is moved the problem back to whatever the higher authority is. If there is a higher authority than God then what is to stop that authority from doing the same thing.

But, in the Christian worldview there is no higher authority. God defines the standards of morality by his own character. We know these standards because we are made the image of God and by what is revealed in scripture.

What may be confusing here is that most people assume that they themselves are the highest authority. Man is the measure. But this assumption does not make it true. Even if it was true then our authority (ourselves) is not going to be sufficient because we are finite creatures in a vast universe. Human authorities are subjective, often arbitrary, and fallible.

I hope I am making sense here. Please let me know where I am not.

Kent

Keith Russell · 09-06-2002, 12:46 PM

Kent:

No, you are not making sense.

Yes, reality is vast, but that in no way makes our knowledge suspect. Just because I do not know what lurks in some unknown corner of the universe, in no way means I must doubt my knowledge of my own life, or my existence as a human being.

And it is from this knowledge (my understanding of the reality with which I come into contact--including other human beings) from which a rational morality is derived.

Such a morality is not derived from me alone, nor is it intrinsic to reality alone, nor is it dogmatically 'revealed' to me in some way by some...'thing'.

To be called rational and objective, it can only be derived by me, based on a rational evaluation of the facts of reality.

Keith.

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

Keith Russell · 09-06-2002, 12:56 PM

Kent, an honest question:

We keep going around and around on this. You claim that there is a God governing all of us, whether we believe it or not. You claim that we cannot even be rational without the presence of God acting upon us.

We try to show that your belief in God is not rational, and all you do is restate that reason wouldn't work, if God did not exist.

Are you trying to convince us that God exists, and do you expect to be successful? Or, are you simply trying to show us that reason is powerless to prevent you from believing--do you claim to be rational?

('Cause I don't think we're going to achieve much, no matter how long this discussion continues...)

Keith.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-06-2002, 08:33 AM	#321
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Kent said: "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." Kent, this is only a statement, actually an unsupported claim. You offer no evidence to support this statement, no facts I can check to determine its validity. You give no reason why anyone should believe you. Do you really believe that unsupported claims are effective? Kent continues: "I will try to explain myself better. God's will is the definition of good which conforms to his holy and just character." Kent, this is not an explanation; it is another unsupported claim. Saying 'God exists', 'I know God exists', 'God's will exists' and 'God did this or that', are not answers-- --neither are they arguments. Keith. [ September 06, 2002: Message edited by: Keith Russell ]</p>

09-06-2002, 08:56 AM	#324
Marz Blak Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Gloucester Co., NJ, USA Posts: 607	Kent-- You said, "...My argument is that without presupposing the Christian God you can have no epistomological foundation at all that is not arbitrary and irrational...." I believe I and others have stated arguments in opposition to this thesis. You have since repeated this thesis without responding to the stated objections to show why they are invalid.

09-06-2002, 09:08 AM	#325
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Kent: I've read several of your posts, although I cannot speak for them all. I have yet to see anything remotely like an argument in the posts of yours that I have read. You have claimed that 'evidence' for God's existence is 'revelational'. This means that it is 'subjective'--not objective. You cannot share this 'revelation' with anyone else, yet rational beliefs can only be based on evidence. Without that evidence, no rational person has any reason to believe your claims. Keith.

09-06-2002, 12:46 PM	#329
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Kent: No, you are not making sense. Yes, reality is vast, but that in no way makes our knowledge suspect. Just because I do not know what lurks in some unknown corner of the universe, in no way means I must doubt my knowledge of my own life, or my existence as a human being. And it is from this knowledge (my understanding of the reality with which I come into contact--including other human beings) from which a rational morality is derived. Such a morality is not derived from me alone, nor is it intrinsic to reality alone, nor is it dogmatically 'revealed' to me in some way by some...'thing'. To be called rational and objective, it can only be derived by me, based on a rational evaluation of the facts of reality. Keith. [ September 06, 2002: Message edited by: Keith Russell ]</p>

09-06-2002, 12:56 PM	#330
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Kent, an honest question: We keep going around and around on this. You claim that there is a God governing all of us, whether we believe it or not. You claim that we cannot even be rational without the presence of God acting upon us. We try to show that your belief in God is not rational, and all you do is restate that reason wouldn't work, if God did not exist. Are you trying to convince us that God exists, and do you expect to be successful? Or, are you simply trying to show us that reason is powerless to prevent you from believing--do you claim to be rational? ('Cause I don't think we're going to achieve much, no matter how long this discussion continues...) Keith.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.