Synaesthesia

Presupposition is palliation of the feeling of uncertainty. It attempts justification by ridding itself of the desire to justify.

Ironically, presuppositionalists' favorite tactic is to challenge non-theists ability to justify or explain this or that. That the presupposition of god's existence by itself cannot justify or explain anything seems to be lost on them.

Presuppositionalists hold that all things can find explanation in an infinitely complex God.
We have, in essence, an enormous body of ad hoc hypotheses. This theory sacrifices parsimony to an extreme degree and offers metaphysical satisfaction without the benifit of understanding anything new.

DRFseven,
There is a crucial difference between a hypothesis (such as electron theory) and a presupposition. All members of a group of hypotheses are vulnerable to elimination. A presupposition cannot be eliminated. No matter how absurd or fruitless it's consequences, everything must be based around it. Be it quicksand or granite, you commit yourself to building on a presupposed theory.


Kris,
Obviously most atheists have a difference conception of objective morals than do you. For me it means simply that given a value system, there are better and worse ways to maximize that which you value. Although we may not be sure of any perfect moral system , we can establish that some are better than others.

Christianity's moral framework is clearly at least as imperfect as many others. The benifit of humanist systems over religious ones is that they are open to revision to become closer to what is objectively better rather than pretending to be the epitome.

Kris

You claim how well known the answers are yet you have not given them. I have read through the evolutionary psychology primer. It explains about how our brain evolved and theorizes about different circuits in the brain. They indicate several observations people have made. This is a great way of learning a theory of how the brain uses logic and reasoning. It does not explain however where logic and reasoning come from. In this view, the mind is a set of information-processing machines that were designed by natural selection to solve adaptive problems faced by our hunter-gatherer ancestors. The word designed is being used very very liberally here. This explanation can only minimally explain a few behaviors involving our survival. I am sure you realize that natural selection uses mutation and death to produce its results. An adaptation or mutation causes the species to be more suited to survival within its environment and thus the new modified species has an advantage over the old non-modified species or form of that species. How can you apply this process to the laws of logic? I do not believe that you can obtain logic and reasoning using these means but even if you could in some way evolve logic that does not explain to me why I should abide by your form of logic. If logic is reduced to chemical process in the brain the results of those chemical processes do not have to comport with reality. There is no reason to be logical or to reason in a coherent way. What would be a coherent way of reasoning? Who would define what coherent is? When I think about the results of what you are saying I just imagine chaos. I am not trying to be difficult here but I can not see how you come to your conclusions.

I said, if no absolute standard exists then nothing is trully wrong and nothing is right.
Ok you are saying that you are the standard for right and wrong.
Ok, now you are saying that there is no standard. Which one is it?
So you are saying that everything is reduced to mere personal opinion. No right exists. No wrong exists. This would mean that no statement is meaningful or that no statement is meaningful to anyone besides the person making the statement. Is this what you are saying?
I think you are making a small mistake here. Most people agree that being tortured sucks however in minor ways everyone tortures, some more than others. According to this statment of yours torture shouldn't exist anymore because most people agree with you and you can count on their backing to take swift action. If torture does exist today then your swift action isn't happening. How long do you claim we have been on this earth?
please note that I said more.

I asked if we should have judged the actions of hitler.
No, I am saying that I have an absolute standard in which I can judge right and wrong. I can say Hitler was wrong. You on the other hand claim that no absolute standard exists so everything boils down to personal opinion. What makes your personal opinion better than Hitlers personal opinion?

Jack the Bodiless

I will stick with rape, thanks. Please justify why your opinion about rape is the correct one please. Where are your morals comming from?
really?
well, that would be a condemnation of rape.

Lets look at the precursor to rape, which is lust or coveting.
'You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, and you shall not desire your neighbor's house, his field or his male servant or his female servant, his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor.' Deuteronomy 5:21 (NASB)

That sounds like a nice relaxing time.
Thanks for the replies.

Kris

MaxMainspring

Putting aside morality for the moment, it is only the presupposition of a God such as that which you claim that puts logic, reasoning and induction in doubt. For example, if logic issues from the will of such a God then this implies that this entity has the power, standing or means to over-ride or nullify such logic and therefore it is not absolute. The law of non-contradiction is then subject to the authority of God and he could transcend it if he so desired. This would mean that he could both exist and not simultaneously.

When the presuppositionist claims that logic issues from God, this is a tacit admission that the proposition that God might not exist, because such a God might transcend the law of non-contradiction. So the possible non-existance of the presuppositionists God is a necessary consequence of the very supposition that supplies the foundation.

Reasoning and induction suffer similar defects in your construction of reality.

As for morality, the presuppositionalist critiques the non-theist by saying that there is no objective morality and that one cannot justly conclude that any act, no matter how seemingly atrocious, is "wrong" in some way that transcends mere opinion or personal intuition.

This is granted, but it is an argument that has two fatal problems.

The first is that it is an argument from discomfort. The fact that you, or anyone else, is uncomfortable in a reality which has no objective source of morality is in no way an argument against that reality in the same way that you could claim that my dissatisfaction with a God who engages in pre-election is not an argument against such an entity. If you are a product of a meaningless, amoral universe, your wish for a moral absolute does not provide you with a recourse.

The second, even deeper problem is the fact that there is nothing about the existence of a putative God that would serve to establish the sort of moral standard that the presuppositonist desires. It can only do one of two things. If it doesn't become an admission that "right" issues from the enforcement power of this God then it is simply a referral of the question to an external authority who becomes a designated arbiter. It no more establishes a final standard than if I claim that morality issues from the edicts of Ghandi. If Ghandi says it is right we have our immutable standard.

Of course you have the right to define morality into existence by saying that what is pleasing to God is moral. But all you have done is to raise an arbitrary definition to the level of objective fact.

Jack the Bodiless

Compare and contrast:

HOMINID #1: Something moved in the long grass.
Saber-toothed tigers use long grass as cover.
Therefore there might be a saber-toothed tiger approaching.
Antelopes also graze in long grass.
Antelopes are harmless, saber-tooths kill.
If I flee from an antelope, it doesn't matter.
If I don't flee from a saber-tooth, I die.
Therefore I will flee.

HOMINID #2: Something moved in the long grass.
I don't know what it is.
Maybe it's an antelope.
Antelopes are cute.
Saber-tooths are kinda cuddly, I suppose.
Wardrobe teapot butterfly.
Grass is green, therefore I am happy.
My, what big teeth you have.
Ow, that HURT.
Should I run now?

...Which is more likely to leave progeny?

Bill Snedden

Actually, under the standard Christian presupposition, you are in fact unable to judge whether any human action is right or wrong.

As a human, you are unable to have complete knowledge of God's plan (that would destroy the creator/creature distinction). God's will is good, therefore God's plan is also good. If Hitler was part of God's plan, then Hitler was also good. Because you cannot know God's plan, you cannot disregard the possibility that Hitler was part of it and therefore you are unable to label Hitler either good or evil.

Actually, in the strict Calvinist sense, Hitler must have been part of God's plan (predestination, don'cha know). Therefore, in the Calvinist sense, Hitler was good.

Without a standard independent of God, you are unable to label any human action as right or wrong. If God is the standard of morality, only He is capable of making moral distinctions.

On the other hand, the humanist does not suffer from this difficulty. A system of ethics can be founded in common human needs and desires (like "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"). Because this ethic is based on human needs, every individual has direct access to the standards required to judge the ethical status of human actions: their own humanity.

Of course, such a system isn't perfect. However, as the "god" solution renders morality and ethics meaningless for humans, it's a much better solution than that one.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

DRFseven

Thanks for the clarification on presupp, Max and Synesthesia.

I'm wondering; if this is true, how can we explain the smart theists who have presupposed a god? I mean, it's just hard to believe that some of them swallow that kind of reasoning.

Vorkosigan

Kris writes:
You claim how well known the answers are yet you have not given them.

I gave you them in thumbnail form: evolution produced the reasoning abilities of H. sapiens, just like it has produced the reasoning abilities of all other species.

I have read through the evolutionary psychology primer. It explains about how our brain evolved and theorizes about different circuits in the brain. They indicate several observations people have made. This is a great way of learning a theory of how the brain uses logic and reasoning. It does not explain however where logic and reasoning come from. In this view, the mind is a set of information-processing machines that were designed by natural selection to solve adaptive problems faced by our hunter-gatherer ancestors. The word designed is being used very very liberally here. This explanation can only minimally explain a few behaviors involving our survival.

Where to start? Evolution does explain "a few" behaviors relating to our survival. If you want a load of detail, you'll have to read The Adapted Mind by Tooby and Cosimides.

You apparently missed the point of the Primer, which is that reasoning powers evolved as part of the cognitive toolkit humans need to cope with existence in a society of highly complex social apes.

In an evolutionary framework, cognitive powers are the same as any other set of traits. They evolve under selection pressures. In the human case, your cognitive processes evolved in competition with those of other H. sapiens. You have various processes that enable you to form, understand, execute and observe social contracts for cheating and other behaviors, and are competing with other primates who have the same basic equipment. This is what evolutionary theorists call an 'arms race' scenario. To put it crudely, you try to form social contracts with me and then cheat, and I look out for you to cheat and then try to cheat myself. We compete with each other intellectually. This competition is one factor driving human cognitive development. You might remember that the Primer points out that humans, when given identical logic puzzles, solve them better when presented as "people" problems rather than as standard abstract philosophy symbols. Humans excell at processing social problems. It is abstractions that throw us -- because we bootstrap our social problem solving skills on other kinds of problems.

I am sure you realize that natural selection uses mutation and death to produce its results.

Incorrect. Natural selection uses differential reproduction as the real reward of evolutionary success. To give a simple example, two groups A&B of the same species reproduce like crazy, but group B has a 1% higher reproduction rate. In how many generations will organisms of group B constitute 99% of all those organisms? I can't remember the exact answer, but it is around 30 or so. It is is reproduction, not death, that counts. Death is only important if it prevents you from reproducing.

An adaptation or mutation causes the species to be more suited to survival within its environment and thus the new modified species has an advantage over the old non-modified species or form of that species. How can you apply this process to the laws of logic? I do not believe that you can obtain logic and reasoning using these means.....

Kris, please note that "I do not believe" is not an argument, but simply an observation about your own beliefs.

....but even if you could in some way evolve logic that does not explain to me why I should abide by your form of logic.

What is my "form of logic?"

If logic is reduced to chemical process in the brain the results of those chemical processes do not have to comport with reality. There is no reason to be logical or to reason in a coherent way. What would be a coherent way of reasoning? Who would define what coherent is? When I think about the results of what you are saying I just imagine chaos.

Congratulations. Welcome to the real world of total subjectivity.

I am not trying to be difficult here but I can not see how you come to your conclusions.

I come to my conclusions based on the best available evidence and argument. Nobody working in human evolution thinks that it is impossible for the human brain to evolve. The emerging field of evolutionary psychology is piling up more and more evidence for evolutionary effects in human cognition. While there is considerable disgreement on things like brain organization, there is overall agreement that human reasoning powers, just like those of all other animals, evolved.

Besides, why is "logic" such a problem for you? On what grounds have you selected "logic" as the thing that is really in need of explanation? Why not music? Why not our bizarre sex drive? Why not bipedalism? Why not the large relative size of the human schlong?

I said, if no absolute standard exists then nothing is trully wrong and nothing is right.

That's correct. Nothing is truly right and nothing is truly wrong. It's up to us humans to evolve, through negotiations between each other, ethical norms. Of course, that's the way it is anyway. Your mode just short-circuits the negotiation process by declaring one moral system right and all others wrong.


Vork:
Commonly said, and completely wrong. If I declare something wrong than it is "truly" wrong

Kris:
Ok you are saying that you are the standard for right and wrong.

Vork: There isn't any "truly wrong" out there. I don't need to "justify" anything.

Kris
Ok, now you are saying that there is no standard. Which one is it?

Both! I don't have some objective standard outside of this conversation that I can appeal to and shut you up. Things are wrong to me when I think they are wrong. I can't adopt your standards because I don't know what they are; all I have are my standards, and all you have are yours.

Please, Kris, give us an objective definition of "objective morals" so that we all know what you are talking about.

So you are saying that everything is reduced to mere personal opinion. No right exists. No wrong exists. This would mean that no statement is meaningful or that no statement is meaningful to anyone besides the person making the statement. Is this what you are saying?

Not at all. If I say "Rape is evil" it is meaningful to me. I judge, from your statements and behavior, that it is meaningful to you as well. However, it probably doesn't have the same meaning to each of us. You've confused "having meaning" with "having the same meaning." The two are not the same. When you told me "Rape was wrong" I took wrong to mean that it was an ethical transgression. So did you, but in your case, you have another framework, Christianity, that gives all those words an extra or different meaning -- sin, eternal punishment, the whole nine yards.

"Evil" may mean something different to both of us, but for practical purposes, our evaluations are close enough that society can function. And the word is meaningful, even if the meaning is not the same.

I think you are making a small mistake here. Most people agree that being tortured sucks however in minor ways everyone tortures, some more than others. According to this statment of yours torture shouldn't exist anymore because most people agree with you and you can count on their backing to take swift action. If torture does exist today then your swift action isn't happening. How long do you claim we have been on this earth?

About 40 years. Torture exists, so what? You realize that even if you prove that my particular belief about the prevalence of torture or people's attitudes about it are incorrect, it in no way invalidates my own morality! It just happens that I own an empirical belief that is wrong. Wouldn't be the first time

No, I am saying that I have an absolute standard in which I can judge right and wrong. I can say Hitler was wrong. You on the other hand claim that no absolute standard exists so everything boils down to personal opinion. What makes your personal opinion better than Hitlers personal opinion?

Certainly no absolute standard makes my beliefs better than his! But we do have another place to look for morals, and that is in human social agreement. Our values exist in networks, networks of other values, and networks of intersubjectivity. And since Hitler was not disposed to negotiate where his views and the views of the democracies clashed, they were forced to fight him. This is how it is everywhere. Where people will not be convinced that they are taking actions inimical to the health and welfare of others, then force becomes necessary.

And for pete's sake quit repeating "I have an absolute standard for....." You have nothing of the sort. You have a standard you have arbitrarily decided on (remember, it is a presupposition, so it cannot be supported by rational argument). Further, this standard is demonstratably incomplete. Consider all the ethical and social problems the Bible is silent on....

• should we permit Jones Act subsidies?
• should we protect infant industries?
• what's the best way to site incinerators?
• how should nuclear waste be managed?
• what's the proper level of risk for a society or an individual?
• what's the best way to manage a river basin?
• what's the proper time window for reporting insider trades in stocks?
• should banks be allowed to sell mutual funds?
• what industries should be state-owned?
• should health care be a universal right supported by the state?

...and so on. There is a whole level of social and individual ethical decisions that the Bible is absolutely silent on.

So much for your "absolute standard." If you want to counter this, now is the time to put forth a definition of "absolute" and "objective" standard, put forth the evidence for it, and show how your version of Christian morality best fits it.

Vorkosigan

Bubba

...And the question I would have asked Van Til or Bahnsen is...

(Drumroll)

Your objective evidence for the existance of God is where??

Kris, I am a theist and don't mean to ask this in anger but I don't really see where you've really started to build a case for God.

Bubba <img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" />

Plump-DJ

To Steven Carr & Vorkosigan.

When we observe cause and effect in the natural world, we find that the effect is nothing like its cause. For instance, a flame is nothing like the match from which it comes. The loud "THUD" is nothing like the hard plastic bowling ball or the floor on which it is dropped. The scent of the flower is nothing like the textured petal of the flower. The causes are not like the effects.

Our perceptions are effects caused by the world around us. But if we find that causes are not like their effects, what makes us think that our perceptions accurately represent anythng like the world around us?

If one says "Oh Evolution" as if this solves our problem all it does is simply shift the question to "How do we know about Evolution?" Did we use our sense perception to gain this information? If so, then we will have to answer the previous question before we can say we know anything about it at all! If causes are not like their effects how do we know that any of the perceptions we have about evolution are anything like the actual data?

Jack the Bodiless

No, we do not. I suggest you read the whole thread.

Everybody begins with the axiomatic assumption that our senses and reasoning are reliable: these assumptions are necessary for all knowledge. Our subsequent discovery of evolution provides justification for the reliability of our senses and reason, but is not in any way a precondition for the use of our senses and reason. We would use them as the fundamental basis of all knowledge even without knowing why they are reliable (and even if they weren't reliable at all: we have no choice).