Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I am surprised if they used the word "theism", as the vacuousness of the presuppositionalist arguments are such that they cannot really allow for the consideration that they might be wrong, even to a competing religion.
I suppose that the presuppositional apologetics face little opposition within the heads of the presuppositionalists.I've not studied presup arguments in depth, but on the surface they do appear to beg the question. At the same time, they raise an interesting objection - that apologetic discussions don't really ever take place on neutral ground no matter their form.
I suppose that the presuppositional apologetics face little opposition within the heads of the presuppositionalists.
That was not intended as dismissive.I wasn't looking for dismissive comments, but I suppose I should have known better.
If the presuppositionalist intellectually opens themselves to the possibility of being wrong, it would seem to tank their own basis for argument. Perhaps they can, and keep up a brave face, but that is quite the lie they would have to maintain.
Go on then.
Regarding my brief syllogistic argument for theism in my penultimate post, Archaeopteryx thought the conclusion seemed like a non sequitur. But as my contention here has been more particularly the impossibility of knowledge from an atheistic perspective, I note with relief that Archaeopteryx went on to acknowledge that a “vexing problem” of epistemology exists. This has been my main point all along. It would seem, by extension, that we agree that this vexing problem cannot be solved by experience or observation alone.
But after that acknowledgement, I was surprised that Archaeopteryx did not see an analogy with morality. There is no more logically justifiable basis in atheism for morality than there is for knowledge. If anything, the lack of a basis in atheism for morality is more evident. (How often have you heard Richard Rorty quoted: “There is no answer to the question, ‘Why not be cruel?‘”) While you may not “need to appeal to supernatural forces to make moral judgments,” you need something more than mere human opinion to support and justify your moral judgments as true and authoritative.
On analogy with my argument from knowledge, I would propose this syllogism arguing from morality: transcendent, authoritative, obligatory morality is not possible unless God exists; transcendent, authoritative, obligatory morality exists; therefore God exists.
In reply to Ana, Bowne’s book was not all about the inadequacy of experience as a standard of truth. That was, at most, a point made merely in passing. But the question goes deeper as Ana also appeared to realize, judging from the phrase, “absurd reductionist epistemology.” If you have always just assumed you knew something for certain and never sought to identify the bases upon which you can justifiably say that you know something, then I suppose it might seem absurd to question the bases of your knowledge and to trace them back to your ultimate standard or unproven and unprovable basal beliefs. But, however absurd, it remains a “vexing problem.” Meanwhile, if you find absurdity objectionable, as do I, then how can you be an atheist where absurdity is inescapable?
On Craig and his incontrovertible experiences,
. I expect Bowne would say that his experiences could be justified on a theistic basis, but from an atheistic point of view the experiences would be, like all his other experiences, merely the necessary products of electro-chemical activity in Craig’s brain with no necessary connection to truth or reality.
This line of apologetics is supposed to show that, quoting Bowne, “Theism is the fundamental postulate of our total life. It cannot, indeed, be demonstrated without assumption, but it cannot be denied without wrecking all our interests.” According to Bowne’s book (going by fallible memory here), what justifies assuming that there is a truth-telling God is the recognition that theism supports our interests, explains and enriches life, and provides a basis for knowledge and morality; negatively, it would be self-evidently wrong to “wreck all our interests” through atheism, where both free-thought and freewill would be necessarily illusory. Bowne’s view thus anticipated Cornelius Van Til’s assertion: “The indispensable character of the presupposition of God’s existence is the best possible proof of God’s actual existence.”
Davian called me out for imprecise language. By atheist I meant an evidentialist who holds to a naturalistic, materialistic worldview according to which the universe is assumed to consist only of matter and energy and the mind is wholly identified with the brain and its electro-chemical activity.
That's the problem: you haven't established "the impossibility of knowledge from an atheistic perspective." You've simply asserted it.
There are many problems that we have thus far been unable to solve, in cosmology, philosophy, psychology, neuroscience, and so on. Religionists often insist that they have the answer to these and many other questions, but they don't show that to be true.
Atheism is not a position on ethics or epistemology. In any case, what you seem to be saying is that the atheist cannot make moral claims because she cannot appeal to a deity in the process. Bollocks. We don't need to appeal to deities to say "That's wrong" at all.
How does invoking a deity make moral judgments "true and authoritative"?
I don't accept your first premise and see it as somewhat of a tautology given that, I suspect, you define "authoritative, obligatory morality" as "God-given morality."
You haven't shown that theism alleviates this absurdity, and you haven't responded to suggestions that it actually worsens the situation.
Perhaps a more accurate - and less biased - term would be emergent.To paraphrase the syllogism then, there is a morality/moral standard/moral imperative that we humans do not devise but perceive with our consciences and, on a good day at least, recognize as obligatory. This morality surpasses merely human opinion, including our own, and so is, in this sense, transcendent.
It is? When did that happen?This morality is recognized as true a priori
That being the conclusion you started with.and included among our other basal beliefs that we assume without proving. This morality and its authoritative character can be justified after the fact only if the source of our morality is acknowledged to be a morally perfect, authoritative God.
Is this a disbelief in gods, or your straw-man version from earlier?This is easily seen by a contrast with the situation in atheism.
Straw-man it is, then.If we presuppose an atheistic, materialistic perspective, then morality becomes nothing more than human opinion.
Do you find strawmen are so much easier to tackle than reality?But one opinion is no more authoritative than another, and so morality loses its authority. And being downgraded to opinion, morality loses its transcendence. And if we are consistent with our atheism, we are compelled to conclude that human opinion itself is nothing more than the necessary result of the electro-chemical reactions in the brain. Free-thought and freewill are now illusory. Human beings become then, on the hypothesis of materialistic atheism, automatons, and no one has ever yet succeeded in showing how automatons can have moral duties.
Are you implying that belief is a conscious choice?As Bowne might say, presupposing atheism
Only your topsy-turvy version of it.“wrecks” the basis of morality.
As we observe in those countries where atheism is the norm.It makes the world morally absurd.
Okay. Define "God" in a testable, falsifiable manner so that this "acquaintance" can happen. And, explain how virtually all of mainstream scientific knowledge is wrong while you are at it.The only relief from this absurdity is to acquaint oneself with the God who made the conscience.
To repeat my previous question: How does invoking a deity make moral judgments "true and authoritative"?To paraphrase the syllogism then, there is a morality/moral standard/moral imperative that we humans do not devise but perceive with our consciences and, on a good day at least, recognize as obligatory. This morality surpasses merely human opinion, including our own, and so is, in this sense, transcendent. This morality is recognized as true a priori and included among our other basal beliefs that we assume without proving. This morality and its authoritative character can be justified after the fact only if the source of our morality is acknowledged to be a morally perfect, authoritative God.
Atheism is not a stance of meta-ethics. One can be an atheist and a moral realist.This is easily seen by a contrast with the situation in atheism. If we presuppose an atheistic, materialistic perspective, then morality becomes nothing more than human opinion.
How does that follow?But one opinion is no more authoritative than another, and so morality loses its authority. And being downgraded to opinion, morality loses its transcendence. And if we are consistent with our atheism, we are compelled to conclude that human opinion itself is nothing more than the necessary result of the electro-chemical reactions in the brain. Free-thought and freewill are now illusory.
You've made a number of claims in need of further support.Human beings become then, on the hypothesis of materialistic atheism, automatons, and no one has ever yet succeeded in showing how automatons can have moral duties. As Bowne might say, presupposing atheism “wrecks” the basis of morality. It makes the world morally absurd. The only relief from this absurdity is to acquaint oneself with the God who made the conscience.
To paraphrase the syllogism then, there is a morality/moral standard/moral imperative that we humans do not devise but perceive with our consciences and, on a good day at least, recognize as obligatory.
If we presuppose an atheistic, materialistic perspective, then morality becomes nothing more than human opinion. But one opinion is no more authoritative than another, and so morality loses its authority. And being downgraded to opinion, morality loses its transcendence. And if we are consistent with our atheism, we are compelled to conclude that human opinion itself is nothing more than the necessary result of the electro-chemical reactions in the brain. Free-thought and freewill are now illusory. Human beings become then, on the hypothesis of materialistic atheism, automatons, and no one has ever yet succeeded in showing how automatons can have moral duties.
Science doesn't deliver certainty, it delivers probabilities (Karl Popper). And just because something is improbable, doesn't mean belief in it is immoral. That's the basic problem with "scientism" - it asserts a probability and treats it as a certainty, then often implies, but often does not support, a moral judgement upon those that see things differently.
So, in an atheistic worldview, there is no particular reason to take seriously scientific data.
This is something even Peter Singer has admitted is a problem when dealing with scientific theories, such as Global Warming, and trying to make a moral case for action from a secular framework. Without an ethical framework that goes beyond the individual and their happiness (though of in naturalistic and utilitarian terms), the moral imperative is weakened to the point of seeming nonexistence.
If I'm going to be worm food in 30 years, why would I want to bother with making sacrifices for people I will never know, especially as there will be no consequences for me either way?
I'm not sure that the presuppositionalist recognises that they hold any burden of proof. In their mind, such a burden is not even intelligible unless one already accepts their theological commitments.Sounds like someone's trying to shift the burden of proof here. And add in that this claim runs counter to empirical evidence and you've got an uphill fight if you want anyone to believe you. But feel free to start any time you'd like.
I'm not sure that the presuppositionalist recognises that they hold any burden of proof. In their mind, such a burden is not even intelligible unless one already accepts their theological commitments.
And yet for some reason, back here in reality purely secular societies exist and Christians are over-represented in the prison population. That trumps made-up rhetoric any day.
Perhaps our resident presuppositionalist canexplain in detail how it is donetell us that we are wrong.
According to observation, causes are greater than their effects; universes do not pop into existence out of nothing; non-living unconsciousness does not produce living consciousness; life comes only from life; cells come only from cells; reptiles do not turn into birds; apes do not turn into men; the discovery of dinosaur soft tissue, the presence of C14 in diamonds, the rapid weakening of Earth’s magnetic field, the continued existence of Mercury’s magnetic field suggest a younger Earth and solar system than popularly acknowledged; we live by sacrifice; rights to life, liberty, and property have a basis in Christian theism; the question, Why not be cruel?, cannot be satisfactorily answered apart from Divinely-appointed morality; people who practice Jesus Christ’s teaching to treat others the way they would like to be treated are pleasant to deal with; justification by faith excels self-justification by non-faith; the Gospel provides a better hope than does believing that we are mere accidents produced by mindless forces in a pitilessly indifferent universe.Observation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?