Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About Me
Followers
rHespond
- About the Author
- Email Karen
- Why This Blog?
- Thinking Worldviewishly
- Mastering the Metaphor
- John Milton - Selected Sonnets
- Robert Herrick & Carpe Diem
- Thankful for Literature
- John Milton's Sonnet on His Blindness (Leland Ryken)
- The Bible as Literature
- The Tragical History of Dr. Faustus
- Macbeth
- Elizabethan Poetry
- Sir Gawain and the Green Knight
- The Canterbury Tales
- Beowulf
- The Course of Empire
- Mathematics & Worldview
- Basic Worldview Systems
- Seeking Alternatives: Emerson & Transcendentalism
Theology and Apologetics Series
Independent Posts
Recommended Blogs
- The Account
- Advancing His Kingdom
- Agent Tim
- Catchword
- Critical Mass
- Culture Watch
- The David Trait
- Evangelical Outpost
- Genelution
- God, Life, Stuff
- Intelligent Design - The Future
- In Rejection of Mediocrity
- Intellectuelle
- Jamie Kiley
- John Mark Reynolds
- Legal Redux
- The Lion Rampant
- Pete's Place
- A Practice in Belief
- The Rebelution
- Smart Homeschool
- Semicolon
- Works of CS Lewis
17 comments:
Karen,
I found your site through a comment you made at Debunking Christianity.
At that blog you made a comment about an "objective moral code." You wondered how an atheist could have one.
It is an interesting comment whether you are a theist or an atheist, though.
For the theist, the question is equally relevant for your god or gods. It's called the Euthyphro dilemma. It asks if something is good because a god or gods declare it to be so or is something good because it is good external from a god or gods.
If something is good only because a god or gods declare it to be so, then it is superfluous to call your god or gods "good." If your god or gods thought that kicking a pregnant woman in the stomach was good, then that would be good. It would be meaningless to say, "God is good," because it would only, ultimately, mean that "God is god."
On the other hand, if your god or gods is/are good based on an external standard of goodness, then your question wouldn't make sense. You would be in the same predicament you believe the atheist to be in. You would have to explain how there can be an objective moral code external to your god.
All this, however, is really beside the point. In being a theist, you are making a truth claim. You are claiming that a god or gods exists. As an atheist, I am also making a truth claim. Specifically, I am saying that none of the arguments for the existence of a god or gods is sound. I, personally, am not saying a god or gods does or does not exist, but rather that there seems to be no sound argument that proves the existence of a god or gods.
You and I both have a burden of proof in this debate. Your burden is to demonstrate your proposition that a god or gods exists. My burden is to demonstrate that your arguments are not sound.
I don't think that you would suggest that I am irrational for not believing in something that has no sound proof. I'm sure that you also reject many propositions that you have never heard. I could suggest, for instance, that there are purple unicorns on Pluto and you would be perfectly rational by rejecting such a belief because there is no proof of this kind of existence.
Like you, I reject a specific proposition that I have seen no proof for. You say that a god exists, specifically the Christian god. I say that I have seen no sound proof of this. It seems that it is now your job to give a sound proof of the existence of a god or gods. Are you willing to do so?
Exbeliever,
Thank you so much for your comment. I quite appreciate it.
I am more than willing to engage in a discussion about our respective worldviews, but before we do so, we have to deal with the issue of the burden of proof. You wrote:
“You and I both have the burden of proof in this debate. Your burden is to demonstrate you proposition that a god or gods exists. My burden is to demonstrate that your arguments are not sound.”
Provided that we have a right understanding of what proof is, I agree, but I would also add something more. If you make an argument against my faith, then you have the burden to demonstrate its truth, while my burden is to demonstrate that your arguments are not sound. The one who makes the claim has the burden to uphold it. Also, in this discussion we cannot assume atheism as the default position. Not only do you hold that God does not exist, you also presuppose a naturalistic worldview. You have the burden to demonstrate the truth of your worldview, just as I have the burden to demonstrate the truth of mine.
Since you presented the Euthyphro dilemma, you must prove its truth, while I must show why it is not sound. It’s actually a false dilemma – Christianity does not accept either of the two options you (or rather, Plato) presented.
Instead, Christianity says that God’s moral commands are not arbitrary; rather, they are grounded in his own infinite and immutable nature. Neither is the good greater than God himself. Goodness is that which is consistent with God’s nature. Goodness is not capricious because God’s nature does not change. God is good and God does good. Ps. 119:68: “You are good and you do good; teach me your statutes.”
My question for you is, do you believe goodness is transcendent and universal, and if you do, how can you explain that in the context of your worldview? From the answers to my comment at Debunking Christianity, it looks like you’ve addressed this in several previous posts. I’ll be sure to read them, and I’d love to discuss them with you.
Karen,
If you make an argument against my faith, then you have the burden to demonstrate its truth, while my burden is to demonstrate that your arguments are not sound.
I agree perfectly. If I make an argument against your faith (e.g. the problem of evil), then my burden is to support it and your burden is to demonstrate that it is not sound. While I don't intend to make such an argument, I agree that if I did so it would be on me to support it.
Not only do you hold that God does not exist, you also presuppose a naturalistic worldview. You have the burden to demonstrate the truth of your worldview, just as I have the burden to demonstrate the truth of mine.
I think you have misread me. I do not "hold that God does not exist," but rather that the arguments for the existence of God are unsound. Because I see no reason to believe in a god, I don't, but this does not mean that I have a positive belief about the non-existence of a god.
You may have never heard the proposition that there are purple unicorns on Pluto. You may have no objection to believing that they exist and, therefore, no positive belief "Purple unicorns do not exist on Pluto," but you would probably still resist holding the positive proposition, "There are purple unicorns on Pluto," unless there is some kind of proof presented that convinces you of their existence.
Similarly, I do not hold the positive proposition, "No God exists," but I also do not hold the proposition, "God exists." I await evidence to believe such a claim.
Furthermore, you say that I presuppose a naturalistic worldview and must demonstrate the truth of it. Atheism, however, can be isolated from naturalism. Most Buddhists are atheists and still believe in the supernatural, just not in a god. Whether naturalism is true or not (I actually lean towards a posteriori physicalism, not naturalism, by the way), then, is not pivotal in the question of the existence of a god.
Since you presented the Euthyphro dilemma, you must prove its truth, while I must show why it is not sound. It’s actually a false dilemma – Christianity does not accept either of the two options you (or rather, Plato) presented.
Instead, Christianity says that God’s moral commands are not arbitrary; rather, they are grounded in his own infinite and immutable nature. Neither is the good greater than God himself. Goodness is that which is consistent with God’s nature. Goodness is not capricious because God’s nature does not change. God is good and God does good. Ps. 119:68: “You are good and you do good; teach me your statutes.”
When you say, that God's moral commands ". . . are grounded in his own infinite and immutable nature," you still fail to avoid the horns of the dilemma. According to your view, if God were another way, then that would be "the good."
Say, for instance, that God exists and has a different plan for the world than you think. Let's say that God created humanity and said, "I'm going to find the best people in this society to spend eternity with. What I will do is make up a religion in which I order genocide (1 Samuel 15:3) and threaten rape for disobedience (Zechariah 14:2). I will also state that anyone who doesn't serve me will be sent to eternal hell. Only those brave enough to stand against genocide and rape when faced with the possibility of eternal torment will be deemed worthy to spend eternity with me."
From what you said above, you would have to accept these actions as "good" acts. If "goodness" is defined by God's nature, then whatever God's nature is is good. Saying "God is good," then, is ultimately meaningless. It only means "God is god." You would have to worship god as good even if his nature was deceptive and cruel. In your view god can only be good no matter what the specifics of that god's nature because god's nature defines what is good.
The truth is, though, most people do not think that ordering genocide is "good," nor do they believe that threatening rape for disobedience is "good." When you use this term, then, you are using it to describe actions that most people would find repugnant. I think that this is deceptive and dishonest. When you describe god as good to people, they have certain expectations and the actions described above are not among them.
Of course, that doesn't mean that the majority moral opinion is universally correct. Perhaps it is a good act to tell an army to kill infants, children, and animals. In fairness to the people you evangelize, however, I think it would be more honest to explain that what you mean by "good" is dramatically different from what they probably think.
My question for you is, do you believe goodness is transcendent and universal, and if you do, how can you explain that in the context of your worldview?
You seem to be getting ahead of yourself. You admitted that you have a burden of proof in this discussion. You are the one making an independent truth claim. You are saying that "God exists." You must support that in some way. Your question, however, attempts to shift the burden without explaining how it fits into a support of your proposition.
Of course, I will be glad to answer your questions, but first show me how they are relevant to our discussion. My guess is that you are getting at an argument that runs something like this:
P1: If transcendental and universal goodness exists, then the Christian God must exist.
P2: Transcendental and universal goodness exists.
C: Therefore, the Christian God must exist.
Your questions seem to be a round-a-bout way of getting me to this argument. But the argument is yours to support.
It is possible that my worldview does not currently have an answer to a certain question or that I may not know the answer that my worldview actually does provide, but does that make my worldview false? If so, why?
If I asked you what was God's exact process in creating matter and you were unable to answer that question, would that make your worldview false?
As an example, I don't know how the universe came into existence (if, indeed, it did). Furthermore, I'm not sure that one can ever know. Our science is based on induction that we draw from the physical universe. If there is no physical universe, then I think it is reasonable to assume that physical laws break down and cannot answer the question of how the universe came into existence.
Does that mean, then, that my worldview is flawed? If you can't answer every question about God (e.g. how a being can have a thought without having a brain), does that mean that your worldview is false?
So, here's the deal. I will be happy to answer your questions about goodness and its fit within my worldview. First, though, I want to see how the questions help support your proposition that a god exists.
Don't shy away from your burden. If you have a belief about the existence of transcendent and universal goodness, then state it.
Karen,
You seem to be a highly intelligent teenager. In fact, I cannot recall anyone else I have come across so diligent and informed at your age. I have no doubt that you could hold your own against most engaging non-believers (perhaps and likely better than I). Yet, I want to caution you about freely engaging persons like ex believer. He is highly intelligent. In fact, I think he holds (or almost holds) two masters degrees (at least one of which is in philosophy) and is perusing a Ph.D. I have seen him engage before and I don’t think there is anything anyone can offer him to change his mind (at least thus far). Not that his objections are not good ones; but, it doesn’t seems that he seeking understanding in his engagement. Rather, he would just like to flex his intellectual muscle to a high school girl (that’s not meant to be pejoratively toward you). I could be wrong, and I don’t want to sound condescending to ex believer, but it seems to me that his level of engagement is at the MA and Ph.D. level of philosophy. He is looking for a fight.
I am sure he will respond stating that he is just trying to have fruitful dialogue and cut me down a few notches, but if I were you, I would be suspect about his intentions. If you choose to engage him, don’t let him squirm out of his own burned as he has already been trying. I already see him making his own definition of atheism. Stating things “your burden is to demonstrate your proposition that a god or gods exists. My burden is to demonstrate that your arguments are not sound” , while true, it is just avoiding justifying ones own position of atheism. He tries to say that he has “seen no sound proof of [God’s existence]” and “I do not "hold that God does not exist," but rather that the arguments for the existence of God are unsound. He may not believe any argument for God’s existence is sound, and I am sure there is nothing you cannot present that he has not already heard before, but atheism IS the belief that the proposition “God exists” to be false.
You can find this definition in:
Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology
Etymological Dictionary of English Language
The Academic American Encyclopedia
Random House Encyclopedia
Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy
Oxford Companion to Philosophy
The World Book Encyclopedia
Encyclopedia Americana
The Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Encyclopedia of Religion
The Funk and Wagnall's New Encyclopedia.
To illustrate just one such example, the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy defines atheism as the "belief that there is no God." So unless he wants to say he not an atheist, then the position of atheism is that “there is no God” not just exclusively “the arguments for the existence of God are unsound” and leave it at that. It’s just a fake neutral claim.
So you can tell ex-b to don't shy away from his burden. If you have a belief about the [non] existence of God, then state it. However, you know that you need not explain anything to him, because here is not looking for an answer, but an argument.
I have no doubts about a prolix response from him regarding my comments. He is quite the word smith and I mean no disrespect toward him, but he’s not here looking for answers, but a fight—it’s evident in his last sentence.
God Bless and take care.
bf,
The way you cast me in your comment, I'm not sure there is anything I can do to defend myself. Anything I say in my defense is nullified by your statement that I am "quite the word smith." I will sound disingenuous.
For what it's worth, though:
First, I'm actually working on my fourth master's degree and a PhD, but who's counting ;).
Second, I'm dialoguing with Karen because she sought out an atheist website and posted a challenge on it.
Third, I enjoy debate, not fights. I am interested in seeing how a conversation unfolds.
Fourth, I am not seeking to squirm out of my own burden. I stated what my burden is from the beginning.
Fifth, I'm explaining my atheism, not anyone else's. If other atheists choose to posit a universal negative as the foundation of their atheism, then they are welcome to do so. I would suggest, however, that this is philosophically naive.
Sixth, my definition of atheism is not novel (you are wrong to write, "I already see him making his own definition of atheism."). In Atheism: The Case Against God, George Smith wrote, ". . . the term 'a-theism' literally means 'without theism,' or without belief in a god or gods. Atheism, therefore, is the absence of theistic belief . . . If we use the phrase 'belief-in-god' as a substitute for theism, we see that its negation is 'no-belief-in-god.'"
I don't think a dictionary or bried encyclopedic definition is preferable to full length sources written by actual atheists, do you?
So, I'm sorry if my definition of my own atheism doesn't fit what you would like it to be. I don't believe that I could begin to prove that "there is no God." I would have to be omniscient to know this. I would have to know every inch of the universe in every dimension over its entire existence. If that is your standard for atheism, then I fall short.
What I will say, however, is that I have never heard or seen a sound argument for the existence of a god. You, Karen, and others claim to know that a god exists. You claim to have some kind of knowledge. Others also claim to have knowledge of other gods. The Hindus claim that a pantheon exists, tribal religions claim gods of nature, Islamists claim that Allah exists. All of these can't be true. Why should I believe one over another?
Karen,
If you do not wish to discuss this with me, that is fine. I should say, though, that I am currently finishing my last year of teaching high school, and I speak to many people your age daily. I've discussed similar issues with them.
bf,
One more thing. I couldn't help but see a parallel between the way you have portrayed this "battle" between Karen and I and a familiar old story about this little kid named David fighting what's his name.
Your faith allows you to believe a teen can take down a giant warrior with a slingshot, but not that a teen armed with Schaeffer can prevail against a philosopher?
Ex,
My apologies if I cast you into the shadows. It was not my intent. As I you’re your credentials are stunning ;-}. Regarding ‘atheism’ I am aware that each individual carries their own set of beliefs and casting one onto a fitted mold is impossible. Yet, I think the historical definition of atheism is (and naive as you stated) an attempt at a universal negative. Many philosophers have recognized this problem and have tried to redefine it or take their own position out of the fallacy. I think that the redefinition of “without belief in God” in it of itself is week. It seems you would have to qualify it more, or else anything without “without belief in God” is an atheist. I dint think you or any other atheist would appreciate it if I said my shoe or a rock was an atheist, because both are “without belief in God.” Likewise, I think it would be disingenuous to call an infant or toddler an atheist because they would be “without belief in God.” The term “atheism” seems to be too strong for such a subtle definition.
As for Karen, it’s really her choice to decide whether to engage you or not. I will say no more to that effect. Whether she is a “David” ready to take on a “Goliath” I don’t know, but it’s not like David sparred with Goliath and won the battle through many maneuvers; Goliath was taken out with one swift move. It may be easier to just take your head off than to spar with you ;-)
Cheers
BF,
Thank you so much for your concern. I really am touched, and I really do acknowledge that what you say is legitimate. Also, I hope I'm not so naive as to think I'm going to "convert" Exbeliever. While I know God (not I) can do anything and that he has made foolish the wisdom of the world (1 Cor. 1), I have other reasons for engaging in this discussion.
Please know that my parents know and approve of this discussion - I wouldn't have it any other way. Thank you, also, for giving me some background on Exbeliever; it helps.
That said, I'm engaging in this discussion because I believe God has called me to be an apologist. I found Debunking Christianity while researching Bertrand Russell's "Why I Am Not a Christian," and I felt like I needed to comment. I trust God to orchestrate the results of this discussion.
Rather than expecting to change Exbeliever's mind (though I pray God will do so), I'm hoping to gain experience in this area so I am prepared when God gives me future opportunities.
Again, thank you so much for your comments and your willingness to inform me. I appreciate it very, very much.
Exbeliever,
The meaning of atheism: While you may claim not to hold a positive belief in the non-existence of God, I’m pretty sure that, practically speaking, you live as if you did. Your presuppositions differ from those of Christianity, and I imagine your lifestyle is inconsistent with Christianity on multiple levels. Doesn’t this mean that when you defend your worldview you’re defending a system incompatible with Christianity and the existence of the Christian God?
When I said you were a naturalist, I was only using the term to distinguish your worldview from one that claims the existence of the supernatural, but if I assumed too much, I apologize.
Euthyphro’s dilemma: If God were other than he is, he would no longer be God. (A perfect being cannot change and remain perfect.) One of God’s attributes is immutability. To talk about good changing if God were to change is non-sensical, like asking if God can create a rock bigger than himself. To say Christians would have to worship God even if he were deceptive and cruel is to say Christians would have to worship God even if he wasn’t God – it’s both impossible and untrue.
The example you gave (God choosing people with whom to spend eternity by making them reject genocide at the risk of eternal damnation) contradicts Scripture – there’s no way to interpret the Bible that way without contradiction because if this were the case, God would be a liar. However, “it is impossible for God to lie (Hebrews 6:18)” and “God is not a man, that he should lie (Number 23:19).”
Transcendental and Universal Goodness: To my mind, this isn’t so much a discussion about the truth value of the proposition “God exists” as it is a comparison of our respective worldviews. You challenged mine when you brought up the relationship between goodness and God. I certainly plan to challenge yours, but I don’t want to do that before I know what you actually believe about the nature of goodness lest I commit the straw man fallacy. My questions are relevant because I will have a hard time arguing if I have to guess at your fundamental beliefs.
“It is possible that my worldview does not currently have an answer to a certain question…but does that make my worldview false?
“If I asked you what God’s exact process was in creating matter and you were unable to answer that question, would that make your worldview false?”
My answer to the last question is obviously “no,” but it’s misleading to compare that question with the ones I asked about the nature of goodness. We certainly don’t have to understand something in order for it to be true. Your question has to do with a process (albeit a supernatural one) that certainly could have happened (and did). On one level I can answer your question by saying that God spoke the universe into existence. Your desire for a more detailed answer doesn’t affect the consistency of my worldview.
However, if universal and transcendental goodness isn’t possible in your system, yet you claim to believe in it, that most definitely does affect the consistency of your worldview. The inability to perfectly explain a specific process doesn’t make that process impossible, but the inability to account for something in which you believe is a very different matter.
Karen,
It seems that we are starting off this conversation in multiple directions. Perhaps, we should narrow it first to a central question that we can both discuss.
Currently, we have three different issues in front of us--(1) The definition of atheism (specifically, my atheism), (2) Euthyphro's dilemma, and (3) your questions about transcendent and universal goodness. It would be easier for us both if we had one central thesis before us. Since I think it would be extremely difficult for us to find enough common ground (presuppositionalists generally don't believe in any common ground at all) to start from, I propose the question, "Are there any sound proofs for the existence of a god [or "the Christian God" if you want to be more Van Tillian]."
Of course, you will want to know what I mean by "proof." I will answer, "A logically constructed argument that ends in 'Therefore, God exists.'" You might respond, "But how does your worldview account for laws of logic?"
If you'll notice, though, how a worldview accounts for laws of logic and whether it allows them or not are two separate issues. If I do hold the law of non-contradiction even without a foundation, we have a starting point.
Karen, I have had many of these discussions in the past. I am repeatedly disappointed by the way so many Christian apologist attempt to avoid presenting any kind of proof for their belief in the existence of God. If you've ever listened to the debate between Gordon Stein and Greg Bahnsen, you'll notice that Bahnsen never gives an argument for the existence of god. All he does is ask questions about epistemology and morality and never indicates why those questions are relevant to the existence of a god.
Alright, I'm going to respond to what you wrote above now. I hope, though, we can narrow these three threads down to one around a central question that you and I can both agree on. I'm afraid that we will be spinning our wheels if not.
the meaning of atheism:
While you may claim not to hold a positive belief in the non-existence of God, I’m pretty sure that, practically speaking, you live as if you did.
I find this a little presumptuous in light of the fact that you don't even know my name, but I'm sure we could find something in my life that you would consider "ungodly" (Although, among my closet friends are three career missionaries, three other seminarians, and many other evangelical Christians. All of these would probably tell you that my life is virtually no different than theirs.).
But "living as if . . ." and "holding to . . ." are very different.
I am telling you in all honesty, that I don't think the proposition, "A god does not exist," can be demonstrated. I don't hold this proposition. I suspect that this might be true in light of the fact that I have never seen ONE sound argument that leads me to believe a god exists, but I am unwilling to firmly stand behind the proposition until I have seen a proof that it is true (something that I think would be impossible).
It seems that you are insisting that I conform to your definition of atheism. I just can't do that. I define my atheism as a skepticism about any argument for the existence of a god.
Doesn’t this mean that when you defend your worldview you’re defending a system incompatible with Christianity and the existence of the Christian God?
I generally don't "defend" my worldview. I'm a little bit "mushy" when it comes to them. I'm Kuhnian when it comes to things like these. I believe that worldviews are like scientific paradigms. They are attempts at explaining the world. When anomalies pile up, a paradigm shift occurs and a new worldview replaces the old. Hopefully, the new worldview will explain all that the old did, plus deal with the anomalies better. At some point, however, I think paradigm shifts are inevitable.
Euthyphro dilemma:
To talk about good changing if God were to change is non-sensical. . .
Where did I suggest that your god could change?
I wasn't suggesting that god changed in my scenario. I only asked you to imagine a scenario in which god was different than you imagine him to be.
In other words, let's say from all eternity, god thought humility was evil and kicking a pregnant woman in the stomach was the ultimate good. According to your view, morality is ". . . grounded in [God's] own infinite and immutable nature." If, then, from eternity God's nature dictated that the ultimate good was kicking a pregnant woman in the stomach, then you would say that "God is good."
In your view, it is meaningless to say "God is good," because the standard by which goodness is measured is god himself. The statement, "God is good," is only significant if there is a standard external to god. Otherwise, the deck is stacked. God can only be good, because good means "whatever god is." It would make no sense, then, to praise god for being good because god could be nothing else, even if he thought kicking a pregnant woman in the stomach was good.
The example you gave (God choosing people with whom to spend eternity by making them reject genocide at the risk of eternal damnation) contradicts Scripture – there’s no way to interpret the Bible that way without contradiction because if this were the case, God would be a liar. However, “it is impossible for God to lie (Hebrews 6:18)” and “God is not a man, that he should lie (Number 23:19).”
But, Karen, the example I gave assumed that God intended on lying from the beginning and that the Bible is all part of that lie.
Think of it this way. Let's say God had an objective. He wanted to find people noble enough to reject the horrible way he portrays himself in the Bible (e.g. commanding genocide, threatening rape, etc.). He wants to test them, though, by threatening them with hell if they do not worship him. This way, he'll know that he has the most noble creatures. He decides to make the entire Bible a deception (even the part that says that he cannot lie) to accomplish his goal.
How would you know that this is not the case?
Do I believe this is the case? Absolutely not. I don't have any reason to believe that a god even exists to make this kind of plot. I also suspect that any being worthy of the name "god" would be above this kind of petty deception.
But, I think you would have a real problem denying this is a possibility. Maybe you, and all other Christians, are like poor Ahab:
And the LORD said, 'Who will entice Ahab king of Israel into attacking Ramoth Gilead and going to his death there?'
One suggested this, and another that. Finally, a spirit came forward, stood before the LORD and said, 'I will entice him.'
'By what means?' the LORD asked.
'I will go and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,' he said.
'You will succeed in enticing him,' said the LORD. 'Go and do it.'
So now the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouths of these prophets of yours. The LORD has decreed disaster for you." (2 Chronicles 18:19-22)
Ahab believed he was hearing from God. God "put a lying spirit in the mouths of" Ahab's prophets. God wanted Ahab to attack a city and meet his death, so he deceived Ahab with a lying spirit.
Perhaps, your God wants noble worshippers who aren't willing follow a god who commands that infants and children be slaughtered. Perhaps he has sent a deceiving spirit to inspire the whole Bible so that he can weed out those willing to follow a god who commits vile acts. How do you know this isn't the case?
I probably shouldn't have given this example, though, because it distracts from my point about "goodness" when applied to a "god" that I stated above. If "goodness" is define as "godness," then it is meaningless to call your god "good." That would imply that you are measuring him by a standard external to him.
Transcendental and Universal Goodness:
To my mind, this isn’t so much a discussion about the truth value of the proposition “God exists” as it is a comparison of our respective worldviews.
Karen, this is what I have observed. I sincerely apologize if this really doesn't apply to you, but this is something I've seen over and over again in discussions like these.
People who use the language of "comparing worldviews," "universal morality," "laws of logic," etc. are generally presuppositionalists. The way they usually operate is to ask tough metaphysical questions of atheists. The atheist begins to try to answer these questions and the theist uses Humean skepticism to show that the answers do not work. The theist then claims victory in the debate without ever putting forth any argument.
I don't know if this is where you are coming from or not, but I have a problem with arguments like this. My problem is that they hide their true arguments which are actually fallacious or unsupported.
I have a friend that summed up the way most people use these kind of arguments.
Theist: "How can you account for transcendent universal morality?"
Atheist: "Duh, I don't know."
Theist: "Aha! Therefore, god exists."
You see there is an implied argument (actually a set of them) that is behind this method. It is hidden.
One of those arguments must go something like this:
P1: If a worldview cannot account for something that exists, it is false.
P2: Naturalistic/Materialistic/Physicalistic worldviews cannot account for something that exists.
C: Therefore, Naturalistic/Materialistic/Physicalistic worldviews are false.
But what reason do I have to believe that premise one is true? What if a worldview cannot currently account for something, but will at a future date? The specific worldviews I mentioned above are heavily reliant on scientific discoveries. Whose to say that a question that is not currently answerable within a worldview will not soon be discovered?
Besides, since this is a theistic argument, it is up to the theist to support this claim.
The second premise is even more difficult to demonstrate. How would one know if these worldviews cannot account for something like universal moral standards? Do you ask a proponent of that worldview? What if that proponent simply doesn't know the answer that his worldview actually holds? Nothing is proven in this manner.
You compared two questions that I asked you and said they were not actually comparable (viz. “It is possible that my worldview does not currently have an answer to a certain question…but does that make my worldview false?" and “If I asked you what God’s exact process was in creating matter and you were unable to answer that question, would that make your worldview false?”).
Your answer to my second question was, "On one level I can answer your question by saying that God spoke the universe into existence. Your desire for a more detailed answer doesn’t affect the consistency of my worldview."
What if I answered your question about goodness similarly? What if I simply said, "There is universal standards of morality because the universe is made up that way." When you demanded "a more detailed answer," I would simply respond, "Your desire for a more detailed answer doesn’t affect the consistency of my worldview." What's good for the goose, you know.
Or consider another question I mentioned above as well. How can you account for a being that has thoughts but no brain? You believe this exists don't you. You should, then, be able to account for it. You should be able to explain how something so outside of our experience can exist. Remember, though, that "the inability to account for something in which you believe is a very different matter [i.e. it "affect[s] the consistency of your worldview]."
Karen, there is an underlying argument in your questions. You believe that your questions are unanswerable in my worldview, and that this proves that your worldview is correct. All I'm asking is that you explicitly state your argument instead of hiding it behind questions that I will then have to take great time to answer only to have you "spring your trap" on me. Why not just put in out in the open?
Bahnsen speaks of the transcendental argument for the existence of god (TAG). TAG is normally formulated, formally, like this:
Let P = universal standards of morality [or laws of logic, etc.]
Let Q = the Christian God
P --> Q
P
:. Q
[i.e. "If universal standards of morality exists, then the Christian God exists. Universal standards of morality exists. Therefore, the Christian God exists."]
This is the positive argument that I think is underlying your questions. I believe your questions are an attempt to justify the first premise. In order to show that universal standards of goodness demands the existence of god, you are trying to establish the "impossibility of the contrary" (to use Bahnsen's words). Establishing the impossibility of the contrary, however, runs into the problem with the argument I stated above (i.e. does the fact that a proponent of a particular worldview cannot account for something mean that that thing cannot be accounted for by that worldview at all).
I know that you will be tempted to engage in a point-by-point discussion of all that I have said above. I hope, however, that instead we can leave these many side issues and agree on a central question to govern this conversation. I really don't have the time (or, frankly, the desire) to run over countless issues (especially ones that I have argued ad nausium online already).
I know it seems like I am evading your questions, but this is really not the case. I've answered this issue of morality and laws of logic many times in the past. I feel, though, that this is a deceitful debate tactic. It is a tactic that allows the Christian theist to weasel out of making a positive argument about the existence of a god.
In the past, I've spent hours and hours justifying morality and logic. I answered objection after objection. When that was exhausted, I said, "Okay, now it's your turn. Give a proof for the existence of your god." I've never been taken up on the offer. Usually, my opponent simply starts the cycle over and says, "How can you account for proof?"
Quite frankly, I'm bored with this kind of argument. If this is the kind of discussion that you want to have, I'll give you links to the answers I've given in the past and I'll withdraw from the conversation. Or maybe I'll just say, "I'll account for the existence of universal moral standards in my worldview after you account for a being that can think without a brain in yours. If you simply say, "That's how god works, I can't explain it," I'll simply say, "That's how morality works, I can't explain it."
Okay, I've spent way too much time on this. I've got to get back to work.
I do request, however, that we work together to find a central question that we can both use to govern our comments. Otherwise, I won't have the time to go from one subject to another. I suggested the question, "Are there any sound proofs for the existence of a god?" If you have another, then I'll consider it.
Thank you for your time.
[By the way, if your parents want my email address (in case they see a need to talk to me privately), I would be glad to provide it for them.]
Hey Karen! Quite a converstion you have going there!
Your reader seems to have fallen into Kirkegaard's "there is no objective truth" dilemma - which wasted faith in the west a century ago. Imagine the fun of medicine or police work done with the concept of "there are multiple truths - none more valid than the other". Yah, chaos. Yet, it is applied to faith constantly.
So, if you can satisfy myself with Romans 1, you will know from this chapter: everyone had at one time an understanding of right and wrong - that was God's witness in them (did a parent, other adult or their culture kill this within them?). There is even the witness of the world around them, which could tell them there is a God, if they were truly looking (but I really don't think very many do!).
Some are luckily enough to have never badly damaged that inner witness. Others, like me, only saw it as a fleeting thought and years later had to struggle through the question of whether or not there is a God - and if so - who is he/she/it?
And that is mighty hard!
Concepts of morality are universal because they are written in us - so we can find basic similarities (murder bad, killing ok). Societal morality may vary because society rarely will follow its own code of conduct (eg: individuals may not murder, however the society may). So you have to watch out for that trap.
In the end, the best way for your reader to understand the concept of absolute truth (and understand they have been lied to by their educational system) is to have someone in their life, whose life they can observe. A tough way to go but that is why we are here - to just be us, succeed or fail, just be us.
It is your consistant, "quiet" witness, of a life well lived which will have the most impact upon those around you.
Keep up the great work!
cc
Chris - many thanks!
Exbeliever,
Hmm. I wasn’t nearly as tempted to a detailed response as you might think. Between the impending SAT and preparation for an imminent national speech and debate tournament, I’m a wee bit frantic.
Right now, I don’t see that the TAG is deceitful in any way or that you’ve refuted the TAG, but I need to read your other material (I’ve printed it, as well as the comments others made, and I have quite a weighty tome before me)-- you could say your arguments fail to "convince" me, in the same way Christian apologists' arguments for their faith fail to "convince" you. Though I’ve read some of the most prominent presuppositionalist authors and listened the Bahnsen/Stein debate, I came to widely different conclusions – which is to be expected.
What I’m going to do is take some time to study this, rather than cast about in the dark. I imagine that's wiser than spouting my thoughts without sufficient research. The problem is that this temporarily halts our discussion. Once I have more of a grasp on the whole thing, I’ll respond. Hopefully that’ll be the best way to steward your and my time. I estimate it’ll take me two weeks, because I’m spending quite a bit of that time out of town.
Like I said, I (in my limited experience) have never read an attempt at refuting presuppositional apologetics, so it’s interesting this has come up. Thanks.
Karen
PS - This whole discussion started when I asked a question about one of the fundamental elements of any worldview. You've responded by arguing against my faith, clarifying the meaning of your atheism, and attempting to spike an argument you expect me to make, yet, my question remains.
Karen,
Between the impending SAT and preparation for an imminent national speech and debate tournament, I’m a wee bit frantic.
I understand. Those certainly demand more attention than these.
Right now, I don’t see that the TAG is deceitful in any way or that you’ve refuted the TAG. . .
First, I never said that TAG was deceitful. What I said was deceitful was not explicitly stating TAG at the outset and waiting to "spring it" after asking tough metaphysical questions. I don't believe that TAG is deceitful at all. I, actually, think that it is a straight-forward, technically valid argument (i.e. its conclusion follows from its premises).
Second, I have not attempted to refute TAG yet (at least, not on your site). What I have asked you to do (if TAG is, in fact, your argument) is to support the premises. I have yet to see anyone do so. There is no way that I can attempt to refute simple, unsupported assertions. Specifically, why is it the case that transcendent, universal goodness demands the existence of a being that has thoughts without a brain? I understand that you assert that this is the case, but how do you support that assertion. It is always the case that someone making an argument should support the premises of that argument (unless of course they are tautologies, which, in the case of TAG, they are not).
. . . but I need to read your other material. . .
Frankly, I would prefer that you let me make my arguments in the context of this present conversation. Every argument has a context, and I think it would be better to ground anything I have to say in the context of this discussion. But do as you wish in this regard. Again, though, I ask that you present some kind of positive argument for the existence of your god. Otherwise, I feel you are just attempting to shift the burden of proof.
Though I’ve read some of the most prominent presuppositionalist authors and listened the Bahnsen/Stein debate, I came to widely different conclusions – which is to be expected.
I'm not so sure that our conclusions are "widely different." I believe Bahnsen won his debate against Stein. I challenge you, however, to read Bahnsen's opening statement and point out anywhere in that statement that he presents a positive argument for the existence of a god. There is no argument there that ends in "Therefore, God exists." One is left to assume this. He does not shoulder his burden of proof at all. Throughout the debate, he plays the role of the skeptic. In turn, his answer to the existence of universal laws of logic is essentially, "God did it." As I have pointed out, however, the concept of god itself needs justification. Every thought that we know of is connected to an activity in a physical brain. This, however, is not the case of the Christian god (unless, of course, you are a Mormon). In other words, Bahnsen interjects a "solution" to the problem that is as problematic (or, more, in my opinion) than the original problem.
I would be interested if, in your reading, you have found any presuppositionalist who offers a positive argument (like TAG) and then supports each of its premises without trying to shift the burden of proof.
This whole discussion started when I asked a question about one of the fundamental elements of any worldview. You've responded by arguing against my faith, clarifying the meaning of your atheism, and attempting to spike an argument you expect me to make, yet, my question remains.
What I have attempted to do in my responses to your "questions" is to show that they are not sincere questions; they are, coincidentally enough (given the name of your blog), rhetorical questions. You already believe you know the answer. You believe that "universal and transcendental goodness isn’t possible in [my] system." You only ask your questions hoping to demonstrate this. [Please correct me if I am being presumptuous, here, but this is how it certainly appears. I cannot believe that you are just curious about what I happen to believe about goodness. I feel that there is an argument and an agenda behind your questions that you have not explicitly stated. I've tried to get you to state those arguments up front rather than hiding them in rhetorical questions.]
The problem is that this temporarily halts our discussion. Once I have more of a grasp on the whole thing, I’ll respond . . . I estimate it’ll take me two weeks. . .
That's fine. In three weeks, I'll be wrapping up things with my job and will have more time to respond anyway.
When you have posted a response, could you let me know by posting a comment on my blog? Even though there is nothing there right now (I've written a couple of posts that I plan to put up soon), there is a comment section on the place-holder post that is up. I moderate the comments so when you put a comment there it will be sent to my email. That way, I won't have to keep checking back to see when you've said something. Just post a comment saying, "I've responded" or something like that.
Also, I have an idea that might be agreeable to both of us. You seem very interested in having me answer your questions about transcendent and universal goodness. I am very interested in getting you to provide some kind of positive argument for the existence of your god.
Why don't we pursue both of these threads at the same time? You present some kind of positive argument that I can respond to in one thread, and I'll present my answers to your questions for you to respond to in another thread. It seems, to me, a perfect compromise position. You can no longer accuse me of avoiding your questions, and I can no longer accuse you of ignoring your burden of proof.
Also, do you want to start a new post dedicated to this discussion? I only commented on your "Apologetics in Action" thread because it was the most recent. It seems, though, that we are far away from the intent of that post.
For sake of summary, this is what I am hearing:
-you will respond in around two weeks time
-I ask that you advise me of your response by posting a comment on my blog (Not Many Wise) so that it is sent to my email, and I will not have to keep checking back here.
-I suggest that we pursue two different threads in this discussion. In one thread, I will directly respond to your questions (even though I believe that they are rhetorical and only meant to set a trap). You can make arguments against what I say there. In the other thread, you present some kind of positive argument for the existence of your god (whether it is TAG or some other argument that ends in "Therefore, God exists.").
-I'll await your response. Thanks for the discussion.
Fabulous.
I'll let you know.
Just an observation:
"Exbeliever" is basicly arguing that we should believe a self-proclaimed atheist's redefinition of a common word, like 'atheist', presumably on the notion that groups get to define their own terms.
One problem is that part of a definition is historical: and nobody gets to define away facts of history. As I understand it, "atheism" arose specifically as the charge that Jews and Christians rejected the divinity of pagan gods -- a positive claim. It comes from the Greek "atheos", meaning "nogod", and the "-isme" was added hundreds of years later by the French. So it is indeed "nogod-ism".
Another part of word-usage is popular: if we wish to define things in an unpopular way, we must at least be clear about it. But then there's no reason others shouldn't be able to offer and use their preferred definitions.
Next, even if we accept his apparent premise -- groups get to [re]define their own labels -- then why should they get to define labels for OTHERS? His definition of "atheism" as "a-theism" -- the assertion "none of the arguments for the existence of a god or gods is sound" -- is broad enough to include ME, a devout Christian, as an atheist -- as I'd agree there is no absolute, deductive "proof" for God.
Finally, he doesn't believe his own arguments anyway. If atheism is ONLY the rejection of theism, then it is THEISTS, not atheists, who get to define the root word in "a-theism".
As I mentioned, he has thus implied theism means one claims there is sound [deductive] proof for God's existence. Atheists therefore say the opposite. Yet, in my experience, theists don't claim theism means or offers a deductive "proof" for God's existence -- just that there is more evidence than for theism than other religions, including the opposite claim that there is no God. Enough evidence to warrant belief, but not absolute proof.
If "atheism" is to be the rejection of the claims of theism, then it needs to refute the actual claims of theism, not a straw man. The rejection of that particular statement, if I am allowed to offer it, would indeed create a burden of evidence.
True, ex, or another "atheist" could simply drop back, and claim instead that atheism is simply failure to believe in theism. But even if so, then why fail to believe theism?
Unless one gives up with something subjective, like "because I don't like it", the implicit or explicit response will be to AGAIN link atheistic disbelief with theists' "failure to prove". Something along the lines of: "If we can't prove something, then we shouldn't believe it."
If so, the game ends, as the "atheist" (agnostic?) has checkmated himself: That belief itself has no supporting "proof" and cannot be proven! In fact, there is a rather rigorous mathematic argument to the contrary, offered by Godel, demonstrating there are things which are actually true, but not strictly provable, starting from any closed set of assumptions as we do.
If I'm in error, feel free to demonstrate otherwise.
Tim,
If I'm in error, feel free to demonstrate otherwise.
I did so in a lengthy comment here.
Tim,
I realized that there are a few points that you made here that you did not make in the post on your blog (which I commented on).
Yet, in my experience, theists don't claim theism means or offers a deductive "proof" for God's existence -- just that there is more evidence than for theism than other religions, including the opposite claim that there is no God. Enough evidence to warrant belief, but not absolute proof.
[I answered the first part of this paragraph (i.e. about definitions) on your blog.]
First, when you write that theists claim, ". . .that there is more evidence than for theism than other religions, including the opposite claim that there is no God," you seem to confuse the terms "theism" and "religions." You compare "theism" with other "religions." There are many theistic religions, though. Did you mean "Christianity"? I don't get you.
As I stated on your blog, I do not define atheism and theism in the way you have stated. In short, I would define theism as "the belief in the proposition, 'A god or gods exist," and atheism as "the absence of a belief in the proposition, 'A god or gods exist.'"
If "atheism" is to be the rejection of the claims of theism, then it needs to refute the actual claims of theism, not a straw man. The rejection of that particular statement, if I am allowed to offer it, would indeed create a burden of evidence.
Your statement, however, contains a huge category mistake that equates a theistic position with a religion and would have nothing to do with "atheism."
True, ex, or another "atheist" could simply drop back, and claim instead that atheism is simply failure to believe in theism. But even if so, then why fail to believe theism?
Unless one gives up with something subjective, like "because I don't like it", the implicit or explicit response will be to AGAIN link atheistic disbelief with theists' "failure to prove". Something along the lines of: "If we can't prove something, then we shouldn't believe it."
I thought you objected to "straw men."
How about the statement, "One is not epistemologically required to believe existence claims that can't be proven." Sure, this statement would need to be justified but it is not the circular, straw-man argument you present.
If so, the game ends, as the "atheist" (agnostic?) has checkmated himself: That belief itself has no supporting "proof" and cannot be proven! In fact, there is a rather rigorous mathematic argument to the contrary, offered by Godel, demonstrating there are things which are actually true, but not strictly provable, starting from any closed set of assumptions as we do.
Sure, the atheist has check-mated herself if she accepts your strawman position, but I don't know any that do.
But let's get practical with this. Take another proposition, "Shy, invisible elves exist."
Are you required to believe this statement until you can prove it wrong? Why not?
You believe the proposition, "A god or gods exists" (or a related, more specific one, "The Christian God exists."). By "god" you mean a being that has thoughts but no brain (or body for that matter). This claim is way outside of my experience (much like shy, invisible elves). A claim that is "way outside of experience" seems to require more support than a claim that I have a lot of experience with.
Does that make the claim impossible? Of course not. I don't claim that it is impossible that a god or gods exist. I simply claim that before I accept an extraordinary claim like this, I want some kind of reason to buy this. Otherwise, I'm doomed to believe in shy, invisible elves, purple unicorns, and any number of things outside of my experience.
So, Tim, you have suggested that it is wrong to reject existence claims that you have no reason to believe. Why is that? Are you consistent? Do you believe in dragons, witches, little green men, etc.? Do you reject all of these beliefs (and all of the beliefs you have never even heard of) because you have positive reasons or simply because those claims are outside of your experience and you have no reason to believe they exist?
Post a Comment