Grumpy

First, while reading the <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/novak/novak071202.asp" target="_blank">Michael Novak column</a> posted on the II Newswire, I thought of two things. One is that he kindly puts the lie to the argument that the "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance refers to anything you like. We know which one he's talking about:

Right. He also indulges in a presuppositionalist argument in order to paint atheists as dolts:

I found this notable, because earlier today I had been reading a <a href="http://www.berith.org/essays/br/" target="_blank">critique</a> of Bertrand Russell's "Why I Am Not a Christian," and it too argued from presuppositionalism. Lucky me, I've managed to steer clear of presupp most of the time, so I'm surprised to see it used so cavalierly.

The critique is by Rev. Ralph Allen Smith, and was published on the web in 1996, so it may have been tackled on the SecWeb before. It boils down to this:

He also basically says, "The Bible predicts that unbelievers will criticize Christians. This only proves the accuracy of the Bible, which means Russell is wrong."

This argument is also echoed in Michael Novak's column.

Rev. Smith also trots out this whopper...

It must have been Augustine or Thomas Aquinas who taught that, because I don't find any indication of a rational God in the Bible. Indeed, it would seem that a Christian must properly abandon all notions of rational thought (i.e. believing in things unseen based on "faith"). Which is where we get presuppositionalist nonsense.

Much trouble could be avoided if theists could agree to meet atheists on common ground, using a shared foundation for debate. The most likely candidate is the ordinary perception of the world around us, with arguments proceeding from there. While any foundation the atheist would claim ought to be shared with a theist, the presupp claims a superior basis which no atheist can accept.

MortalWombat

Or it means that the writers of the New Testament were writing decades after the supposed life of Jesus and were already dealing with criticisms about Christianity, so they incorporated that into their stories about Jesus.

Eudaimonist

They have it all wrong. Prior to Christianity, the Stoics argued that Zeus is a rational God that orders the world of rational human beings according to rational principles. Therefore, these presups should worship Zeus.

I'll bet these Christian presups are simply stealing ideas from Greek philosophy and repackaging them under the Christian label.

Veil of Fire

Why not? They steal crap from every other religion that ever existed....

ohwilleke

Novak's argument is in essence:
1. You can't have morality, meaning or order in the universe without God, and
2. atheists believe in morality, meaning and order in the universe,
3. therefore, they really believe in God and are just fooling themselves.

Novak's basic thump on the table problem, however, is that his claim that God is necessary for morality, meaning or order in the universe is bankrupt.

Grumpy

Novak and Rev. Smith both miss the point with their morality arguments. While it is true that an nontheistic "source" for morality is such a nebulous concept as to be unintelligible, this is not only the atheist's burden.

Bertrand Russell touches on the "Euthyphyro" dilemma, without calling it such, and Rev. Smith falls into the trap. Namely, by what standard do Christians judge God to be "good"? Implicitly, theists and atheists cleave to some "higher" sense of morality, otherwise how could we identify goodness when we see it?

Russell is more direct when he notes that Christians observe an moral standard apart from God when they reject certain Biblical practices as barbaric. This point Rev. Smith dodges entirely.