Jun 20
I am very sorry to all of those who have been wondering what’s going on with this blog since February. Yeah, I was really busy. You have no idea. But, putting the past behind us, I have some interesting things lined up for this blog, so stay tuned.
For the quote of the month (the 1st anniversary of the Quote of the Month series), I have an excellent quote from a book I’ve been reading recently (and all of you should definitely read it too):
The more logical a man who holds a non-Christian position is to his own presuppositions, the further he is from the real world; the nearer he is to the real world, the more illogical he is to his presuppositions.
Francis A. Shaeffer,
The God Who is There, 1968
June 21st, 2007 at 11:21 pm
Althusius,
This quote introduces the idea of “being logical to one’s presuppositions.”
As “a man who holds a non-Christian position,” I’d like to ask you: what makes you think I have any presuppositions, i.e., anything that I hold outside of questioning?
June 25th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
Ironwolf,
This could get interesting.
The word "presupposition" doesn't necessarily mean something that you hold outside of questioning, though it may involve that. Presuppositions are those things that you base your worldview on. They are ideas or beliefs or facts that you have constructed your philosophy of life around. They are at the root of how you interact with other people.
One of your founding presuppositions is that God does not exist. Out of this flows certain views that you have, like the Bible being the uninspired, fallacious word of man, and not of God.
That's just one, I'm sure there are more. We all have them.
June 26th, 2007 at 12:03 am
Althusius,
I think you are using a specious definition of “presupposition,” by simply saying it is “those things that you base your worldview on.” Your quote seems to be made by a well-known Christian-presuppositionalist-apologist who used the term in a much stronger sense. My understanding of the presuppositionalist position is that it holds such things as the existence of God, or a literal six-day Creation, to be foundational and beyond question. To a presuppositionalist, even where the preponderance of evidence would otherwise seem to disagree with the cherished presupposition, it is the evidence that must be summarily rejected. I would argue that your quote is only understandable from within that strong presuppositionalist framework, and not within the context of your feeble redefinition.
On the other hand, I do not hold either the existence or non-existence of god(s) to be beyond question. (And certainly, even Christians define and describe God in many different, often conflicting ways.) I am also willing to examine the question of whether the Bible is divine in origin or written by men. In fact I have done so, and am willing to revisit the question as new evidence or arguments come to light. I’d even be happy to see something substantial come to light in the staff-to-serpent or talking-donkey department. You get the idea.
My self-identification as “atheist” reflects my current understanding of the universe based on the best information that I have. Should I come to a better, deeper understanding on any topic, I am willing to embrace it unless and until I gain an even better understanding. Even if at some point I again came to believe in a god, why should I not hold even that belief at that time apart from doubt and question?
Again, I ask you: what makes you think I have any presuppositions?
July 9th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
Ironwolf,
Presupposition is defined by Francis Shaeffer himself in the glossary of The God Who Is There as follows:
Such foundational Christian presuppositions as the existence of God or a literal six-day creation are beyond question because they are true and are the real world. Therefore we as presuppositionalists begin there and challenge the non-Christian worldview from that point. If those presuppositions are questioned by non-Christians, then we know that they are wrong, and we will use evidences and logic to defend our presuppositions. We will use Scripture as the Word of God because it is blessed by the Holy Spirit; if someone questions the Scriptures, then we debate them there. There is a large misconception about Van Til’s apologetics and presuppositionalism in general.
For a non-Christian, his/her presuppositions are not necessarily beyond question, because they might realize that there is no basis for them or that they can’t know anything for sure. But the point of the issue is that presuppositions, as Shaeffer said, are beliefs that are held that lay the groundwork for subsequent steps in formulating a personal philosophy of life, or, worldview.
My self-identification as “atheist” reflects my current understanding of the universe based on the best information that I have.
Okay, so that’s your understanding of the universe. The more logical you are to your understanding of the universe takes you further away from the real world. This current presupposition carries with it certain conclusions, such as the point that there is no purpose in life since we are all machines that arose somehow from impersonal warm soup.
July 10th, 2007 at 3:27 am
Althusius,
You are still trying to have your cake and eat it too by using weasel-phrases like “current presupposition.” This creates a class of “presuppositions” distinct from the presuppositions you (with Shaeffer) hold, and in doing so merely confuses the issue. The views I hold are provisional, and subject to review, challenge, and upon refutation, revision. The presuppositions you hold are never subject to any of those, because they are held above and away from logic and evidence, which by definition can only be used to support your presuppositions— never to undermine them.
So again I ask you (hopefully more clearly): What makes you think I have any presuppositions in the sense you hold with Shaeffer?
July 11th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Althusius,
Just to try to get a little more clarity and keep this from moving off-topic, let’s not forget how your “quote of the month” begins:
This statement implies that people other than presuppositionalists such as yourself actually have presuppositions in the same sense that presuppositionalists hold them. Yet, you have so far presented no arguments or evidence that this assertion is true… and I’m still waiting for them.
July 12th, 2007 at 8:43 am
Ironwolf,
I have an off-topic question (or, questions) that was shortly brought up in our last conversation.
However, if you will please, it is step-by-step question. So I’ll start with this, for the sake of clarity:
Why is that you do what you do? (blog debating etc)
July 12th, 2007 at 10:55 am
Flyboy, I would recommend emailing Ironwolf or commenting on his blog if you want to ask him that. Please, I would like this comment thread to be pure and on topic, and thanks to Ironwolf for keeping it that way. Thanks, Flyboy.
Ironwolf,
Please read my comment (#4) over again because you seem to have missed my point. But in case I wasn’t clear, I’ll state what I said again (and develop it) using your comment (#5 and #6).
The views I hold are provisional, and subject to review, challenge, and upon refutation, revision.
The views I hold are permanent, but still subject to review, challenge, and upon refutation, revision.
The only thing is that it is impossible to refute them, because they are absolute truth. But if they are challenged and reviewed, then I will defend them with confidence. So far in my years of talking to atheists, agnostics, Muslims, and other non-Christians, I have never encountered an argument that refuted Christianity. There have been some challenges that I have been unable to answer, but those are minor points that do not constitute a refutation of Christianity, and I have been able to find answers for them after reading the Bible, praying, and talking to (and reading the works of) other Christians.
The presuppositions you hold are never subject to any of those, because they are held above and away from logic and evidence,
No they are not. They are logical and can be supported by evidence. As Schaeffer said, our faith is one that can be “verified.” It is not a blind faith, it is a faith that is based on real, space-time evidence and logical progression.
However, the non-Christian worldview strays from the realm of evidence (this is just one example) in the area of the “mannishness of man” (as Schaeffer called it), or the area of the personality of man. Your worldview has no explanation for phenomena such as love, a desire to know one’s purpose, a dread of non-being, etc. You have no evidence to support the personality of man outside of creation by God.
In the area of logic, the non-Christian worldview has no answer for why logic exists. Since the universe is impersonal and governed by chance, there is no reason why logic exists or why it should be used. Thus, logic has been rejected by non-Christians in areas such as art and philosophy. Yet, in science, the non-Christian must return to the rules of logic in order to carry out his/her work.
evidence, which by definition can only be used to support your presuppositions— never to undermine them.
Evidence can be used to undermine my presuppositions, but the same evidence (as I have found) can be equally used as well to support my presuppositions. It depends on the interpretation of evidence. Christianity has an answer for every bit of evidence out there that explains it equally as well as the non-Christian interpretation; ultimately surpassing it. Presuppositional apologetics does use evidences; its uniqueness from other forms of apologetics stands in when, how, and why it uses evidences.
people other than presuppositionalists such as yourself actually have presuppositions in the same sense that presuppositionalists hold them.
Yes, but they may not necessarily be in the same sense that we hold them. You, as you have stated, hold them as provisional beliefs; I, as I have stated, hold them as permanent beliefs, and have stated my reasons for doing so. But that does not mean that they are not presuppositions. To get rid of the double negative, it means that they are both still presuppositions. Yes, I am creating another “class” of presuppositions, because of the fundamental differences between a Christian and non-Christian worldview. But the same basic definition still applies in both cases. They are both beliefs or a set of beliefs that are accepted before the next step in logic is developed; in this case, concerning your worldview.
What makes you think I have any presuppositions in the sense you hold with Shaeffer?
Schaeffer (sorry for the wrong spelling that I introduced, it’s Sch), as I said before, defines presuppositions as,
I would agree with this statement, and this is how we should to define presuppositions in this thread (since we’re discussing a quote from Schaeffer, how about we use his definition? Imagine that).
So while you may not hold your presuppositions in the sense that Schaeffer and I hold them, you still hold them in the sense described in the above block quote.
Yet, you have so far presented no arguments or evidence that this assertion is true… and I’m still waiting for them.
One of those presuppositions is your belief that there is no God. From this presupposition you have followed to conclude that the Bible, since it claims that it is the Word of God, must be false in many areas, because it is the Word of something that does not exist, or is at least the finite and partially erroneous word of men. You have also concluded in the area of morals that you can define your own morals (or adopt them from others in the ethic of reciprocity) and apply them to other people.
Just taking these two examples, they are illogical and stray from the real world in that:
The Bible is verified by the real world and holds all the signs of truth; namely, historical accuracy, inward consistency, sufficiency to answer the problem of man, adequacy to live by, and (although you won’t accept this sign) the revelation of God. Moreover, you need a reference of truth, or you can’t know anything for sure.
In the area of morals, you cannot know if your standard is a good one (it might be just as good as Saddam Huisein’s was), you cannot apply it to other people because you do not have any power to back it up, and you live inconsistent to it in your daily life (but without consequence, and therefore it is a purposeless moral standard).
Sorry that got a little long-winded.
P.S. Why are you, as a non-presuppositionalist, argueing with me, a real presuppositionalist, about what presuppositionalism is? Maybe you should trust a person who actually holds the position in question (and I’m quoting Schaeffer and using Kuyperian and Van Tillian ideas).
July 12th, 2007 at 10:56 am
Sorry about that, the HTML went wacky and it took me a long time to fix it.
July 12th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Hmmm….
If we do email, no one else would benefit from our conversation. But if you insist, I’ll try commenting on his blog one more time
July 12th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Flyboy,
Please don’t comment on my blog unless its reasonably on-topic for one of the postings. If you have off-topic questions, e-mail.
July 12th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
This is a contradiction in terms. It makes no sense.
That is because Christianity as you hold to it is unfalsifiable, and thus purely an article of faith, unscientific, and pointless to anyone who does not, a priori, share your faith.
Again, this is circular reasoning. Either your presuppositions are primary or they are not. If they are primary, then not only is there no evidence that supports them, there can be no evidence that supports them, else that evidence would be primary. You (and Shaeffer) are talking out of both sides of your mouths.
The only reason you can say this is that the only definition of “explanation” you will accept is, to wit: “God did it.” Since you a priori reject any explanation that does not rest on that axiom, you will never hear my explanations.
The traits to which you refer can, in principle, be explained by physical processes. That makes them no less important to humans. Of course, you still reject the term “explain” unless it rests on “God did it.”
Unfortunately, you cannot rely on your pat answer, “God did it,” for the answer to that either, because the claim that God is primary is nothing but another assertion of faith.
Again, you are being duplicitous when you claim that evidence can, at least in principle, undermine your presuppositions, but then define (with Shaeffer) a presupposition as something that is logically prior to evidence. This again points to the unfalsifiability of your position and the vicious circularity of your reasoning. You claim logic while denying it. You claim evidence while denying it.
Yes: “God did it.”
Yes: Use the evidence when it supports your presuppositions and deny it when it doesn’t. Intellectual dishonesty rules your world.
Thanks for admitting that. Now, if we are talking about two different things, i.e., your class of presuppositions and my class of “presuppositions,” then surely you would have no problem with picking a different name for two things that are obviously not the same. For instance, if I show you a cat and a dog, and we both agree they are different species (or biblical “kinds” if you prefer,) then it would be helpful if one of us didn’t go calling them both “cats” just to prove that we are both cat-lovers when it is quite clear I prefer dogs.
So since Schaeffer defines “presupposition” as “A belief or theory which is accepted before the next step in logic is developed,” (hence the word presupposition) and since my world views are better defined as “Provisional beliefs or theories developed after experience, evidence, and/or reasoning,” then for the sake of our discussion I would prefer that we call my class of beliefs “postsuppositions” from here on. Thanks.
No, in fact I do not. I have postsuppositions, thank you.
My provisional belief that God is a myth is, in fact, a postsupposition.
You are erecting a straw man:
1. God doesn’t exist -> The Bible is invalid.
You want God’s non-existence to be my presupposition (before the arrow) when in fact it is my postsupposition (after the arrow):
2. The Bible appears to be of human origin -> The Bible does not appear to support God’s existence.
Notice also that in your straw man 1., the statements on both sides of the arrow are absolutes, because this is how you think. In 2., which is my statement of how I think, both sides are provisional.
Like no Nazareth in 1 C.E.?
Still no timeline from the Easter Challenge.
Answering mystery with deeper mysteries. Some “answer.”
“Adequate” if you’re a fan of religious strife.
Mere assertion. Just because you hear voices in your head claiming to be God doesn’t mean it is God.
I haven’t been arguing for knowing anything “for sure.” In fact, I see neither why that is important nor useful. My beliefs, while often backed up with a lot of evidence and reasoning, are provisional: and yet I am a productive, happy human being and member of society. You claim this is impossible without belief in your God, but my existence refutes that.
I have defended my morals at length to you on my blog and they do not need re-defending here.
Because you are authoring confusion by not even holding to what Shaeffer says.
And if indeed you agree that I am a “non-presuppositionalist,” then you must consequently agree that I do not hold presuppositions, so I fail to understand why you press this unfounded argument.
Hey, I’ll be the first person to say that atheists are the ones who should define what “atheism” means to them. But if I then try to argue that you, Althusius, are really an atheist even with respect to your own God, I think you have some rights to dispute that. I have little doubt you believe in your God, or that you hold “presuppositions” in the sense that Schaeffer defines. But don’t go telling me that I do too, and that I can’t even give my epistemological method its own name– that’s just rude.
August 10th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
[…] why, after participating in debates like this and this, I am left mystified as to why many religious apologists feel the need to engage in […]
August 15th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Ironwolf,
Don’t despise me by linking to me negatively in your post. Yes, you did have a few good points in response to my comment, but much of your response is straw man manufacturing and evasion.
This is a contradiction in terms. It makes no sense.
You are right there. I shouldn’t have said revision; I should have said reading (reading the Bible), because as I state later, I have not run across an argument that refutes Christianity. But my main point still stands, that my views can be challenged, and I heed those challenges and try to find an answer to them (e.g. my talking to you right now).
That is because Christianity as you hold to it is unfalsifiable, and thus purely an article of faith, unscientific, and pointless to anyone who does not, a priori, share your faith.
Whoa, whoa, whoa here buddy; hold on. You got the first part right, I do believe that Christianity is unfalsifiable, because it is an absolute truth (yes, those amazing things that some lunatics believe in). However, this does not mean that it is “purely an article of faith, unscientific, and pointless to anyone who does not, a priori, share [my] faith.”
Christianity is an absolute truth, and therefore you would expect to see the reality of the world be consistent with it.
It is an article of faith, but that is not all. It contains (to borrow a phrase from Schaeffer) propositional revelation that describes God, man, and the universe not exhaustively but truly. It is a faith based on a trustworthy person asking you to believe based on good and adequate reasons that you can check for yourself.
Science, (the knowledge that we can glean from the physical, present-day world around us) as I have repeatedly shown on this blog is consistent with it. The Bible itself contains scientific statements that are supported by what we see today. People have been led to Christ through scientific work. Christianity, by the way, just happened to give rise to science. I do not see how Christianity is unscientific.
Christianity has affected the lives and hearts of even those who do not believe in it. As one of my non-Christian friends said, “I like Christianity because it makes good people who do good things and work hard.” Even at this simple level, you can see that Christianity is not pointless to non-believers. Christianity gave you the society that you live in today.
Please explain to me your last three adjective phrases (”purely an article of faith, unscientific, and pointless to anyone who does not, a priori, share [my] faith.”).
Either your presuppositions are primary or they are not. If they are primary, then not only is there no evidence that supports them, there can be no evidence that supports them, else that evidence would be primary. You (and Shaeffer) are talking out of both sides of your mouths.
That is simply not true. My presuppositions are primary, and they are truth. If they are truth, then they can be, and will be supported by real world evidence, which is what we see. I fail to understand why you can’t get this (besides maybe the fact that you’re blinded by your permanent, unfalsifiable presuppositions of God’s non-existence).
For example, let’s take Einstein’s theory of relativity. Let’s say that he held his theory to be immovable and foundational to the fabric and truth of the universe. Let’s say he got a lot of other people to believe him, based on his word as a scientist, his arguments, and his mathematical formulas. These people would accept that, and would see various proofs for the theory of relativity over time. Then comes along Lise Meitner, a few years later, who calculates the amounts of mass and energy left after what she realized was a nuclear fission. She found that the amounts fit into E=mc2 exactly. Thus, another evidence was found for the truth of Einstein’s theory of relativity. These external observations provide evidential confirmation of what was already believed to be true. Truth can be supported by evidences. And, as with Christianity, the evidences for the truth of relativity have continued to flow over time.
God’s Word is primary. He tells us as a trustworthy person that we should believe based on good and adequate reasons. As the Holy Spirit leads, some of us believe. Then later we see more external evidence to see that what we believed before is true. To say that a presupposition such as Christianity can never be conceived to have any evidence that confirms it is hogwash.
The only reason you can say this is that the only definition of “explanation” you will accept is, to wit: “God did it.” Since you a priori reject any explanation that does not rest on that axiom, you will never hear my explanations.
Nice evasion. I don’t a priori reject any other explanation; I look into it and think about it, and have so far not encountered any explanation that fits the real world (yes, that annoying thing you atheists cannot stand — remember the quote that started this whole conversation?). But I’m still looking to find out what atheists think on the matter. I was wondering what your opinion was since you seemed like a thoughtful, scientific atheist; but apparently you don’t like talking about such things. So again, nice evasion.
The traits to which you refer can, in principle, be explained by physical processes. That makes them no less important to humans.
Interesting, please explain further. No atheist has yet told me the physical processes that you refer to. This is new stuff. I’m curious.
Of course, you still reject the term “explain” unless it rests on “God did it.”
Try me. Impress me. Debate me. Don’t give lame excuses.
Unfortunately, you cannot rely on your pat answer, “God did it,” for the answer to that either, because the claim that God is primary is nothing but another assertion of faith.
For the rest of the world to see, notice how he didn’t answer my question about the existence of logic. He just made another brute assertion of faith in his previous argument that I have shown to be faulty. Then he deflects the question to me, even though the question was pointed to him for him to answer. However, being the nice guy that I am, I will answer it for my worldview. Within the biblical framework, God exists and he is logical as part of his attributes. Thus his Creation is logical. However, Ironwolf has not provided any answer. I’m still waiting for an answer, Ironwolf. When? When are you going to provide answers instead of evasions?
Yes: “God did it.”
God did it and we can see how and why. The only reason that you can’t accept that is because you are blinded by your presuppositions. But what answer do you have? This is what you have: “The impersonal, plus time, plus chance did it.” (you have no idea how, but the only other alternative is God, so you have to go by this one, which of course doesn’t fit that annoying real world again).
Use the evidence when it supports your presuppositions and deny it when it doesn’t. Intellectual dishonesty rules your world.
Another case of evasion and pointless ridicule based on brute assertions. Should I keep a tennis score like you did in one of our previous conversations? That would be jolly, but no thanks.
Thanks for admitting that. Now, if we are talking about two different things, i.e., your class of presuppositions and my class of “presuppositions,” then surely you would have no problem with picking a different name for two things that are obviously not the same. For instance, if I show you a cat and a dog, and we both agree they are different species (or biblical “kinds” if you prefer,) then it would be helpful if one of us didn’t go calling them both “cats” just to prove that we are both cat-lovers when it is quite clear I prefer dogs.
Thank you for showing us your skill with the sword in striking down straw men. Notice later in my paragraph, I stated clearly that the only difference between my presuppositions and your presuppositions is that yours are changeable (they can change to being Christian presuppositions), while mine are fixed firm (I believe in Perseverance of the Saints). That is the only difference. Notice I also said later in my paragraph that “the same basic definition still applies in both cases. They are either beliefs or a set of beliefs that are accepted before the next step in logic is developed; in this case, concerning your worldview.”
Provisional beliefs or theories developed after experience, evidence, and/or reasoning
…developed after experience, evidence, and/or reasoning done through the filter of atheistic presuppositions. Or, as Ken Ham says, your atheistic “glasses.”
The Bible appears to be of human origin -> The Bible does not appear to support God’s existence.
What you missed before the arrow was this:
The Bible appears to be of human origin because I don’t want to trust the God who says that it is His Word (notice how I inserted that into my original text for fear that you would accuse me of a straw man, which you did, obviously missing my words, and focusing on your interpretation of a paragraph, looking through atheistic glasses). I don’t want to trust God because that would acknowledge that He exists. I don’t want to acknowledge that He exists because then I would be ultimately accountable to a higher power.
both sides are provisional.
Provisional statements that seem to be the basis of the rest of your worldview. Hmmm. Why does that sound familiar?
Like no Nazareth in 1 C.E.?
You obviously have to deny archaeological evidence to the contrary because that would disprove your point, and nothing is allowed to disprove your points.
Still no timeline from the Easter Challenge.
One only has to look into the previous post’s thread to view my lengthy debunking of the Easter Challenge and why a timeline is not very necessary (besides to give Ironwolf one less evasion opportunity). As I said there, I could compile it at a future date, but right now I’m too busy. Lurkers can easily read the Gospel accounts with my explanations of nit-picky contentions posted by Dan Barker. You can also Google “Easter Challenge” to encounter a few other people’s refutations of it, though I would not subscribe to all of those. A fairly good one (with timeline!!!!) is right here.
Answering mystery with deeper mysteries. Some “answer.”
The dilemma of man: Romans 3:23, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” (c.f. the next few verses).
The answer: Romans 5:1-11, “Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. And not only that, but we also glory in tribulations, knowing that tribulation produces perseverance; and perseverance, character; and character, hope. Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us.
For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. And not only that, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.”
That’s not too mysterious. See also John 3:16, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.”
Plain and simple. Believe it, Ironwolf, and you shall be saved. You will have no need for a network of excuses and evasions. You will have the truth.
My beliefs, while often backed up with a lot of evidence and reasoning, are provisional: and yet I am a productive, happy human being and member of society. You claim this is impossible without belief in your God, but my existence refutes that.
It’s interesting that you just proved the whole point of my main post (the Quote of the Month - June). Your beliefs cannot allow you to be a productive, happy human being and member of society unless you are inconsistent to them. And you are. If you weren’t (if you were consistent), then you would end up like Nietzsche did, insane and delirious. Or like some of our public school trained nihilist youth who can’t find a point in life and robbed booze from a grocery store that I was at today (some of them also do other things, like firebomb churches and shoot other classmates). But thankfully, you are not consistent to your presuppositions, and society can welcome you.
I have defended my morals at length to you on my blog and they do not need re-defending here.
Another evasion. Maybe I should start counting.
Because you are authoring confusion by not even holding to what Shaeffer says.
I have taken great pains to show you what Schaeffer says by quoting from him and using his terminology. It is you who pretend to understand what Schaeffer is talking about, while ignoring the quotes of his that I bring up to refute your arguments.
Yes, maybe at times I have been confusing, but others who read this can still understand my main points.
And if indeed you agree that I am a “non-presuppositionalist,” then you must consequently agree that I do not hold presuppositions, so I fail to understand why you press this unfounded argument.
You are non-presuppositionalist apologist. That’s what I meant. I’m sorry if I was unclear. But that in no way means that you do not hold presuppositions. It just means that you don’t use them in defending Christianity (which is understandable, since you are an atheist). As Schaeffer said, you can hold a presupposition even though you are “unconscious” of its existence. And everyone does hold presuppositions.
August 15th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Sorry that link doesn’t work. Here it is again.
August 15th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
Typos and bad tags fixed in this version. Please delete previous copy. Sorry about that.
Althusius,
Thank you for admitting that: your beliefs are not open to revision. Mine are.
Thank you for admiiting that: this is why your beliefs are not open to revision. My beliefs are falsifiable.
Who is this “trustworthy person?” Ah, I see by reading ahead that it is God. And how do we know God exists, much less judge his trustworthiness? As far as I can tell this is a brute assertion. You (also later) go on to claim that his Holy Spirit leads us to this truth. Well, the Spirit has not lead me to this truth. Why? And, how do you know?
Science has done much more to undermine the literal interpretation of the Bible that you hold to than it has ever done to support it. You think the world is less than 10,000 years old! This is not a statement supported by any scientists except those who also a priori hold with your superstitious metaphysics– a rare breed indeed.
Many things gave me the society I live in today. Trying to give Christianity all the credit shows just how cockeyed your world view is.
Purely an article of faith: Since in your epistemology revelation is primary and evidence and reasoning can only support revelation and never refute it, then your form of Christianity would exist even if no evidence existed whatsoever. Therefore, it is purely an article of faith.
Unscientific: You believe the world is less than 10,000 years old, based not on evidence, but revelation. You believe that macro-evolution has not occurred, based not on evidence, but revelation. Can you give me a single example of any mainstream scientific theory that is based on revelation? I didn’t think so.
Pointless to anyone who does not, a priori, share your faith: Perhaps “pointless” is too vague a term. You can certainly argue the usefulness of your faith (as your non-Christian friend notes), but that in no way establishes its metaphysical claims. So while I will agree that some formulations of Christianity are not “pointless” in the sense of “uselessness,” I think what I meant was more along the lines of “pointless” in the sense of “nonsense.”
When a belief is “supported” by evidence, then the evidence is epistemically prior to the conclusion. But your presuppositions are asserted to be epistemically prior to evidence and reason, and thus neither evidence nor reason can support them or refute them. This is fideism– why won’t you simply admit that?
You keep asserting this, but my non-belief in God is not unfalsifiable. I know what sort of evidence could get me to be a believer. Your beliefs in God, however, are unfalsifiable because you will admit to no evidence that could, even in principle, change you into an atheist. The distinction is quite simple and clear.
But scientific truth can also be refuted by evidences. This is the essence of falsifiability. Without falsifiability, a belief cannot be said to be scientific.
Again you punch the straw man. The question is not, “Can evidence be conceived of that confirms Christianity?” Even I can conceive of such evidence. The questions are: 1) “Can evidence be conceieve of that falsifies Christianity?” and 2) “Does the preponderance of available evidence favor the acceptance of Christianity’s metaphysical claims?”
Clearly the answer to 1) is “No.” No matter what evidence turns up, you cannot possibly see it as anything other than 100% supporting your presuppositions. It cannot possibly even be 99% in favor to 1% against. Your presuppositions admit not a scintilla of doubt because they are epistemically primary: they are applied before evidence, before reason.
For 2), clearly we differ with you answering “Yes,” and me answering “No.” However, my world view allows me to change my answer to Yes, while your world view will never allow you to change your answer to No.
Yes, but you will reject any “explanation” that does not rest on your presuppositions. Proof? Please hypothesize an “explanation” that does not rest on your presuppositions that you would accept. Can’t do it? Q.E.D.
Very smarmy of you. I do not propose to have complete answers to the physics of consciousness, although great strides are being made in this area– you only need to keep up on science news. But admitting the incompleteness of my knowledge does not admit to the completeness of yours.
I am not here to impress you. I am here to respond to your assertions for the benefit of others who come here.
As we have debated I have been learning about you. A major part of what I have learned is that you and your ilk load otherwise simple terms like “explain” in most disingenous ways. I no longer think, for instance, that you will accept any chain of explanation that does not epistemically rest upon your presuppositions. Therefore, I have concluded that it is not possible to “explain” anything to you. Another example is that you have refused to admit into your writing any mention of the word “postsupposition.” This tells me that you are not actually attempting to honestly understand a different world view, but to play language games as an evangelical ploy.
I don’t know why logic exists, and I’m not even sure the question makes sense. I can say with certainty that your answer is no better, and is arguably worse (Occam’s Razor), because it simply regresses to the deeper mystery: “Why does God exist?”
Saying “I don’t know,” is hardly an assertion of faith.
Postsuppositions. Show me why they should change, and they can and will.
No, that is not all I have. I also have your theory, “Yahweh did it.” I also have “Allah did it.” I also have “Vishnu did it.” I also have “Zeus did it.” I reject them all, and so do you– except for one. Why? Not for a reason, but a revelation that your deity, if it exists, has not seen fit to grant to everyone it allegedly created. This deity of yours “creates evil” and hardens the hearts of men. He predestines some to share paradise with him and others to burn in eternal torment. You believe all this as a presupposition: not epistemically based on evidence or reason.
I cannot.
Aside from your straw men, what am I really left with? I have answered this to you before: I do not know why the universe exists, and I am not ashamed to admit it. For abiogenesis, I don’t know that either although this question is being explored by scentists who find “God did it,” to be insufficiently illuminating– I support their work. For the diversity of life we see both now and in the ancient past, the preponderance of available evidence does indeed strongly point to an impersonal process operating over great spans of time and involving (but not exclusively resting upon) chance– a process called Evolution. For morality, the dominant emergent property we see among social animals such as humans is the Golden Rule. I also have a host of non-rational preferences that I am happy to hold, including a love of chocolate, music, and a sense of wonder at the natural world. But I do not pretend to use science or reason to apologize to others about them.
Of course, I am just scratching the surface here. I await your dismissive response.
So there is a difference, just as there is a difference between cats and dogs. So again I ask, Why do you insist on using the same name for two things that you admit are different?
Well, see there’s the rub, because the same basic definition does not apply. Obviously Althusius cannot see this, but I appeal to other readers to go back in this conversation and verify that for yourself.
Again, I know I could become a believer were I presented with the right sort of evidence– evidence that even Christians acknowledge may exist now or at some point in the future. So why do you think you can get away with such brute assertions? Don’t you realize that such “blah blah blah I can’t hear you” sort of responses only serve to make you look more and more insensible? Is this how an apologist does his job?
You are putting words into my mouth. I never said this. I don’t believe it– not even in my heart of hearts. It is the same straw man again and again– you are unable to conceive that a non-believer is simply that: one who has honestly tried the evidence and found it lacking not out of some kind of pathological denial but simply because it lacks.
However, I am capable of thinking that you hold your faith as firmly as you say you do, and it both saddens and frightens me.
Assuming you are willing to personally certify that the timeline you have linked to omits not one biblical detail from every verse specified by the Easter Challenge, then I will have a closer look at it. Since you already linked to it, I’m sure you won’t mind publicly staking your reputation on it, right?
Believe it on what evidence, Althusius?
So… A demented Nietzsche and public school-educated nihilist punks are your best examples of people consistent with their “non-Christian presuppositions…” and… let’s see here… you want to argue that anyone who is not either insane or a criminal is actually in line with a set of pre-logical assumptions (presuppositions) that necessarily eminate from Christianity, and that’s what makes them good people… Further, you want to assert– without evidence– that these purely Christian presuppositions, are frequently attained by people who are not now, nor ever will be Christians, or who perhaps identified as Christians as one time but deny it now… because were this not the case then the vast majority of people would be insane criminals, and if most of us were insane criminals then there would be no society that could welcome me.
Have I got all that?
Please, Althusius, tell me why I should restate a position that I have already stated elsewhere at length? This is the Age of the Internet. People can go to my blog and look it up. If you have a question that I haven’t answered, then simply ask it, either here or in the comments section of my Golden Rule post on my blog. But please don’t accuse me of evasion when all I am doing is trying to avoid repeating myself.
You have failed to make this case. Here I am: I am willing to question whether or not I hold presuppositions: I am awaiting the evidence and/or reasoning that will convince me. I am even awaiting the miracle from your deity that will convince me without all that pesky evidence and reason.
Sorry, but mere assertions don’t change my beliefs.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:46 am
I’m sorry, Althusius, but Ironwolf seems to have the upper hand here. I just thought I should let you know what an outside observer thought. Just on Christianity, as my local youth pastor often says, Christianity is faith-based, there is no actual *proof* of the existence of “God” or otherwise. If a man who has dedicated, and I mean dedicated, his life to “God” can say that, it must be fairly accurate.
Also your beliefs are flawed in that you appear to believe that for those who are without your “God”, life is meaningless and empty, with nothing to keep us on track. Fortunately untrue, as millions of Atheists prove daily. I’m sure that many religious people are nice enough, but your lack of rationality in having a religion is reason enough in itself for “cleansing” in some shape or form.
Congratulations Ironwolf, with rational and intelligent wo/men like you in the world, we may yet prevail against irrational religions and their snake-oil salesmen.
Apologies for usage of *, my knowledge of HTML is sketchy at best, so I decided not to risk it. Hopefully my comments are not too off-topic, and I have not misinterpreted anyone.
August 28th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
WillNZ:
No offense, but my primitive mental capabilities are unable to detect how in the world your comment relates to this post (or what Ironwolf and I are talking about). About the only thing that connects is the general topic of Christianity, but besides that, I’m wondering if you even read the post or the comment thread.
But, enough of my satire on the condition of raging atheists.
Christianity is faith-based
So is atheism. Personally, I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist. Sorry if that sounds like a cheap shot, but look at the rest of this thread and others in the surrounding posts and you’ll see what I mean.
Just because I’m such a nice guy, I’ll give you one thing to think about:
Atheism has to take a blind leap of faith (a much larger one than Christianity), to believe that life, standards, emotions, and a host of other things exist. As I’ve said before, you guys can’t even prove that you yourself exist (and you try to evade explaining it, as Ironwolf has so beautifully demonstrated).
there is no actual *proof* of the existence of “God” or otherwise.
And there is no actual proof (empirical, that is) that God does not exist. So, in the absence of empirical proof either way, we can choose from two options:
One choice leads you to wander on a stormy ocean without any shoreline; the other leads to life, meaning, purpose, and comfort.
There is a lack of empirical evidence for many things (love being one of them, which Ironwolf still hasn’t given me an answer for), but that does not mean that they do not exist. There are other methods of proof. However, there is truth that can be confirmed by empirical evidence, and the existence of God is one of those things.
you appear to believe that for those who are without your “God”, life is meaningless and empty, with nothing to keep us on track. Fortunately untrue, as millions of Atheists prove daily.
There is a certain phenomenon that is happening quite regularly on this blog in my conversations with at least four atheists so far. It is the phenomenon of arguing fiercely against me, and yet proving my point exactly within the same paragraph.
The precise reason why atheists can live such normal lives is because they are inconsistent with their presuppositions (yet close to reality). This is exactly what the quote in the post said.
An atheist says that there is no objective truth or absolute standard, and yet obeys the law. An atheist says that emotions such as love are determined by chemical impulses and imbalances (despite complete lack of empirical evidence for this), and yet loves his wife as if emotions were real things that transcend the simple electrical synapses of the brain. An atheist says that there are no real consequences and no eternity after death, and yet he works hard, and invests his time as if there is something to look forward to after death. To the atheist, nothing can be verified as real, and life has no transcendent purpose, but he loves his children and provides for them even though he isn’t sure if they are real.
your lack of rationality in having a religion
Thank you, sir. And perhaps you would like to talk to Francis Bacon next? After you’re finished insulting him, you might want to have a chat with Raymond Damadian. Isaac Newton, Galileo, Kepler, James Clerk Maxwell, and Michael Faraday are lined up waiting for your censure. Those irrational fools who think that rationality actually exists! They actually believe that logic has meaning and our conclusions have meaning because God created logic and our rationality! Don’t those fools know that logic is an interesting idea that you can accept or reject? Don’t they know that the brain is just a physical organ that exists in this “cruel, cruel trick called life,” and that none of its conclusions are real?
“cleansing” in some shape or form.
I don’t even want to know what you’re referring to with that statement.
Congratulations Ironwolf, with rational and intelligent wo/men like you in the world, we may yet prevail against irrational religions and their snake-oil salesmen.
Sadly, Ironwolf is one of those few who still keeps his head. Read the latest and greatest in atheist literature (e.g. Dawkins and Hitchens), and you’ll see that the atheistic community is rapidly deteriorating into a body of raving intellectuals who are angry that theists haven’t disappeared off the face of the planet.
August 29th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Allow me to preface my horning in on this conversation with a one fact I want to lay out, so as to avoid vagueness:
I believe in god. Not the Christain God, nor the Muslim Allah, nor Yahweh or Gannesha or any number of other named deities. I simply believe in an organizing and instigating force to the universe. The whole thing is far, far too complex and chaotic to actually function without some form of intelligence behind it. I do not pretend to know the mind of god, nor do I capitalize the word, because I don’t know if he wants me to. I believe god is a being or force so far beyond our potential for comprehension that to attribute such things as “Don’t eat meat on Friday” to him/her/it would diminish him. (I will continue to use the masculine form, because I’m an American male, and that seems to be how we’re conditioned)
I have no evidence to support this belief other than the fact that, despite all the forces involved, the universe seems to work. I just wanted to lay that out, because I’m going to side with Ironwolf and don’t want to be accused of atheism.
On a couple of accasions, Althusius has asked for proof that love and other non-survival related emotions could come from a place other than the Christian God. While I have no proof or evidence or anything so concrete as a pie chart, I can offer a credible explanation that does not include the word god at all:
Because human beings have eliminated their natural predators, it is no longer necessary for a human infant to be able to run and jump and otherwise flee danger mere moments after birth, so they aren’t programmed with the ability to. Because of this, until about the age of four, human infants require a great deal of care and supervision. Since nature tends to be a practical and pragmatic place (Sea turtles laying eggs, then never laying eyes on them again, moose leaving their young alone for two weeks immediately after birth) there needs to be a really good reason why an organism would devote four years and more of its life to its young when no other species does this. For this reason, the concept of love was evolved. A parent loves its child because in order for the species to survive and make more of itself, the children must be cared for. A husband loves his wife because the mother and child are vulnerable and must be protected and provided for. As a parent, I can say that if I didn’t possess the earth-shattering amount of love for my daughter that I do, I might have left her in the nursery, much noise as she made. And if I didn’t love my wife so much, I’d have done it like the bears do and left her before I was done smoking the post-coital cigarette. (Bears smoke, little known fact)
Now let me say that I don’t personally believe this explanation. I love my daughter because I love my daughter. I resent the idea that my feelings are nothing more than chemical reactions and biological imperatives. But it is a perfectly plausible explanation which does not involve god.
Althusius, you say that athiests make observations and draw conclusions from the athiest perspective, which colors them and makes invalid because they were made with “athiest glasses” on. You also say, on numerous occasions, that there is evidence which supports your Christian conclusions and that your faith is verifiable. What you have failed to do, however, is actually provide any of this evidence. I ask you, can you show me any evidence from which the single, solitary, one and only conclusion that can be drawn is “There exists a loving creator of the universe who had a son and he was crucified by Romans because he offended the local Jewish rulers. Etc., Etc.,Etc” And I mean by anyone. Christian, athiest, Jew, Muslim, Wiccan or Congolese pygmy. Because if there isn’t, then your assertation that the evidence supports Christianity is done from behind your own pair of glasses, and is therefore just as flawed as the reasoning of athiests. Let’s take this a bit further. I challenge you to present evidence which causes this conclusion in all who view it. Or any evidence for that matter. If your reply to this post does not include such evidence, or if you do not reply to this post, you are tacitly admitting that it does not exist.
Moving on, Althusius also says that any athiest must necessarily deviate from his own worldview in order to function as a sane human being. What I think you mean by this is that, under the athiest doctrine, there is no morality, and no law and no conscience, and no reason to act as if there was.The athiest is forced to act in an outwardly moral manner because of governments and police and jails, and is driven insane by the conflict between what are essentially his id and superego. The only solution, then, is to act as if there is a reason not to kill someone and use their entrails as a blanket when you’re cold, or to rape the first woman you see when you feel amorous. The athiest, in order not to go insane, must adhere to the tenets laid out in the Bible, even though his view of the universe says there is no reason to. I submit to you that the Bible is not the only place that these reasons come from. Humans are social animals, and for the species to thrive, must form cohesive groups. No society can function without rules. No stealing, no killing, no raping. What I like to call the Boondock Saints baseline for morality So, an athiest, being a human, might have an interest in seeing the human race thrive, and for the good of society might decide to buy a wool blanket, rather than using someone else’s entrails.
Finally, I’d like to say that both Althusius and Ironwolf have become a bit too angry for this to be a really valid debate. Perhaps you both should take a breather (Right after replying to this, I can’t stand suspense), or at least meet somewhere and battle it out with those giant Q-tips from American Gladiators. The discussion might benefit from a general lack of derision and sniping.
August 29th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
As the Fishbone General has just said, atheists do not act against their worldview by having morals, etc. As a matter of fact, please visit this site: http://friendlyatheist.com
Hemant points out that part of his problem with any religion, but Christianity in general is the basic premise that everyone else is evil and bad and Christians can do no wrong.
This debate has gotten right into the reason that I will not identify myself as a Christian, even if I do identify myself as a follower of Christ.
September 3rd, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Prove I exist to whom? For what purpose? Why should I prove to you that I exist? You can choose to believe in my existence or not, and that does not change the force of my arguments.
But please note that asserting the opposite, “I do not exist,” requires someone who exists to do the asserting. In other words, the concepts of “asserting” and “denying” epistemically rest on the concept of “existence.” In other words, you can exist without asserting or denying anything, but you cannot assert nor deny without first existing.
So since asserting, “I do not exist,” is a contradiction, it cannot be meaningfully asserted. However, if I choose to assert my existence, there is no contradiction. “Proving” my existence then relies on providing a preponderance of evidence deemed acceptable to whomever one is trying to prove one’s existence to— something I don’t intend to get into here.
This is a false dichotomy— you are setting up an “either/or” choice when in fact one or more additional choices exist. Every religion and every sect within every religion is such a choice. Non-religious value systems such as humanism are also such choices.
Again, you ignore the other side of the coin: truth that can be confirmed must also be subject to conceivable dis-confirmation, or all the “confirmation” in the world is fatuous self-indulgence. When a new scientific theory is advanced, scientists fall all over themselves to try to disprove it, with great honor to anyone who manages to do so— the tool of falsifiability is one of the crowning glories of science done right.
Straw man. Laws are made by men, and are not objective nor absolute.
Straw man. Emotions are real things even if their origin is entirely explainable by naturalism, and even in that case a full explanation would take away none of the visceral meaning that emotions provide.
Straw man. I work hard and invest my time as something precious because it is limited, and I have no evidence of anything to look forward to after death.
I am confident in my own existence and the existence of my children, but if you, oh Great Althusius, want to offer novel argument or evidence that this is not the case, I await your wisdom…
Still waiting…
I am not an atheist because of any of the hundreds of living or dead non-theists I could name, any more than you are a believer because of Newton or Galileo. So why do you bring it up? Answer: Argument from authority— still trying to throw sand in the eyes of those who would really use them.
Oh, but if you really want to throw out an argument from authority, then you shouldn’t omit people like the deeply devout Christian Francis S. Collins, who also happens to be an eminent scientist who strongly supports the Theory of Evolution— something I think you have a little trouble with, Althusius. Don’t you want to have someone like Collins on your side?
Thanks for the flattery, but I am firmly in league with the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, and all that lot. I happen to think they “keep their head”… and their heart. There is a reason why they are so popular right now, and it isn’t “raving intellectualism.” It’s because voices such as theirs are needed in the public discourse as a counterbalance to the rampant superstition and its frightful consequences we see worldwide— most of which you yourself, Althusius, would deplore.
September 20th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
I have just reviewed my post, and would like to formally apologize for the gratuitous amount of typos and spelling errors which occur in the first bit. Normally, I am very vigilant about such things, but at the time I was at work, constantly being assailed by the ridiculous requests of hotel guests. As evidence of my prowess: Onamatopeia. There.
September 25th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
Fishbone General:
I was putting off replying to your comments until I saw your recent comment on “Falling in Love with a Theory.” It’s hard not to respond to a masterpiece like that, so I felt like I might as well take the whole enchilada of your comments at once.
So here we go with your first paragraph:
The whole thing is far, far too complex and chaotic to actually function without some form of intelligence behind it.
I totally agree.
I do not pretend to know the mind of god, nor do I capitalize the word, because I don’t know if he wants me to. I believe god is a being or force so far beyond our potential for comprehension that to attribute such things as “Don’t eat meat on Friday” to him/her/it would diminish him.
I understand what you’re saying, but is it really diminishing to God (that’s the way I spell it, pardon me if you take offense) to be able to communicate to men?
Yes, I agree that God is a being who is vastly far beyond our potential for comprehension. (Isaiah 55:9, “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts.”). However, this God, this Intelligence is also so powerful and awesome that He created the universe. God, standing apart from our universe, created it and is actively involved in it. He communicates to his universe even though we don’t deserve it. He tells us about Himself (not exhaustively, but truly) and about what we should do as members of His universe. I believe that it glorifies God more to say that He is in control of everything, and yet is so loving and good that He is actively involved in our lives. Communicating to man is not diminishing to God, but rather glorifying.
(I will continue to use the masculine form, because I’m an American male, and that seems to be how we’re conditioned)
I understand completely. I don’t believe God is a male or a female either, but God reveals himself as “him” to show his personality as opposed to a impersonal force. We’re “conditioned” that way because our consciences still bear witness to the truth (Romans 1).
there needs to be a really good reason why an organism would devote four years and more of its life to its young when no other species does this. For this reason, the concept of love was evolved.
I admire your explanation, but it doesn’t fit in well with several things.
First, evolution doesn’t have any mechanism for “love.” You say that, “the concept of love was evolved,” but I still am not aware of scientists finding the love gene (If they did, let me know because I need some more of it). There is no way for a concept to evolve (”evolve” meaning Darwinian mutation-selection evolving). A concept can only be passed down to succeeding generations through speech, but those generations can easily reject it. And yet, we all seem to find this emotion of love before our parents (or whomever) educate us about it.
Second, this explanation doesn’t really explain romantic love between a man and a woman before children come. And please don’t tell me it’s just animal sexual desire.
Bears smoke, little known fact
Cool, I never knew that.
Now let me say that I don’t personally believe this explanation. I love my daughter because I love my daughter. I resent the idea that my feelings are nothing more than chemical reactions and biological imperatives.
And this is the third thing that doesn’t fit in: your own personality. You admit yourself that your love for your daughter is a lot (multiply that “a lot” by a thousand) more than just chemical reactions and biological imperatives. This is true for everyone. Humans have real personality, they have a spiritual nature that isn’t explainable by empirical science. Thank you for being honest and admitting that you don’t really believe the explanation you posted.
I ask you, can you show me any evidence from which the single, solitary, one and only conclusion that can be drawn is “There exists a loving creator of the universe who had a son and he was crucified by Romans because he offended the local Jewish rulers. Etc., Etc.,Etc” And I mean by anyone. Christian, athiest, Jew, Muslim, Wiccan or Congolese pygmy.
If you read this blog–I used to post much more regularly than I do now–you will find much evidence that points to Christianity as being Gospel truth. If you go to numerous apologetics websites and read their articles and their books, you will find much evidence that points to Christianity as being Gospel truth. If you walk into a true church where Christ is preached and His name is glorified, you will find much evidence that points to Christianity as being Gospel truth. I could go on, but I will point to one thing as conclusive evidence that Christianity is the Gospel truth: the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.
Christians, athiests, Jews, Muslims, Wiccans, and Congolese pygmies have all come to know Christianity as the Gospel truth from the testimony of Jesus Christ rising from the dead on the third day.
I challenge you to present evidence which causes this conclusion in all who view it.
No one can ultimately argue against the fact of Jesus’ resurrection, and all will eventually view that evidence, but the sad thing is that even though they might be convicted by it, they hate it. They hate it, they hate God for making it that way, and they hate all those who love that evidence and follow its implications to their fullest extent.
Humans are social animals, and for the species to thrive, must form cohesive groups. No society can function without rules. No stealing, no killing, no raping.
True, although I wouldn’t say they’re animals.
So, an athiest, being a human, might have an interest in seeing the human race thrive, and for the good of society might decide to buy a wool blanket, rather than using someone else’s entrails.
An atheist might have an interest in seeing the human race thrive, but he doesn’t have to. He can equally choose to act for the good of society, and choose to act for the bad of society, and no one would be able to judge him. Because all he’s doing is just not choosing to believe in what some people think is right. There’s no over-arching power to say otherwise. There’s no over-arching power to say that killing a sheep to use its wool is better than killing a human being to use his/her entrails. It might be the other way around for all an atheist knows.
Finally, I’d like to say that both Althusius and Ironwolf have become a bit too angry for this to be a really valid debate. Perhaps you both should take a breather (Right after replying to this, I can’t stand suspense), or at least meet somewhere and battle it out with those giant Q-tips from American Gladiators. The discussion might benefit from a general lack of derision and sniping.
I’m sorry to say that Fishbone General is right that I have been a little bit to snappy, and I’d like to apologize for the way I’ve spoken. I was wrong in having my tone of voice be way too sarcastic, and I’d like to apologize to everyone who reads the exchange above for that.
However, I still hold by my main points that I proposed above, and continue to challenge anyone to refute them. I would further urge you to read your Bibles and discover the truth.
Thank you, Fishbone General, for bringing back some humor to this blog that it used to have in the days of Axinar, Boneman, and Percival.
To conclude, I would like to pay penance for any grammatical or spelling errors that I committed in this post by saying: Floccinaucinihilipilification. Beat that.
September 25th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
Karena:
Christianity in general is the basic premise that everyone else is evil and bad and Christians can do no wrong.
Actually, it’s the belief that everyone (Christians too) is evil and God can do no wrong. Further, it’s the belief that God loved everyone so much that He sent His son to take the punishment for everyone’s evil, thereby saving us from the punishment for evil, so that we can reign in glory. Why some people hate that is mind-boggling.
September 25th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Ironwolf:
As I said to Fishbone General, I would like to apologize for any snappiness and overly done sarcasm plus mockery that I gave you in previous posts. That was wrong, and I ask your forgiveness.
“Proving” my existence then relies on providing a preponderance of evidence deemed acceptable to whomever one is trying to prove one’s existence to— something I don’t intend to get into here.
My point exactly.
Every religion and every sect within every religion is such a choice. Non-religious value systems such as humanism are also such choices.
Allow me to copy and paste my first option from the quote in question:
Every other religion and sect, including humanism, goes into the “besides that which we can make for ourselves” clause of my option.
truth that can be confirmed must also be subject to conceivable dis-confirmation
Yes it is conceivable that dis-confirmation could take place. For example, if no one in the world cared what Larry Craig did in that Minnesota bathroom, that would point to a dis-confirmation of biblical truth. If war constantly consumed the entire earth and people raped and murdered each other without control every time they saw each other, then dis-confirmation would take place. However, those things don’t happen, they don’t match reality. Reality testifies to the truth of God’s Word, as my quote in the post and Romans 1 point out.
Straw man. Laws are made by men, and are not objective nor absolute.
My point was not that laws are objective or absolute, but rather that they represent a deeper absolute standard. Atheists don’t have to believe in this standard (in fact they deny its existence), so they don’t have any basis for obeying the law. They could just as rightly choose to obey or disobey the law and it wouldn’t matter.
Emotions are real things even if their origin is entirely explainable by naturalism, and even in that case a full explanation would take away none of the visceral meaning that emotions provide.
Exactly. You believe emotions are real, I believe emotions are real, but you don’t have an explanation for them. At least you haven’t given one.
Straw man. I work hard and invest my time as something precious because it is limited, and I have no evidence of anything to look forward to after death.
But honestly, who cares about working hard if you don’t have to? If there’s no purpose or reason to work hard, and no consequences for what you do in this life, then why not just do whatever you want? Now you could say that you get an emotional high out of it, but that just sounds lame to me. Then again, no one asks me about these things. [[cries and weeps uncontrollably]]
So why do you bring it up?
I brought it up because WillNZ said that having a religion showed “a lack of rationality.” Therefore, I showed him example of people who possessed and used their amazing rationality, while still holding to a religion.
I am confident in my own existence and the existence of my children
But since you have just asserted that, can you prove how you are confident in your own existence and that of your children. That’s my point.
Don’t you want to have someone like Collins on your side?
No. Not really. No thanks. I’d rather have God on my side. He’s the only authority that counts.
the rampant superstition and its frightful consequences we see worldwide— most of which you yourself, Althusius, would deplore.
If you mean Christianity by “rampant superstition,” then those frightful consequences would be free responsible governments, unbounded charity, promotion of learning, prevention of catastrophic war, advancement of civilization…
September 26th, 2007 at 1:43 am
Althusius,
Oh? Well, I guess you win then! Congratulations.
Wait.
Oh, right… I don’t intend to getting into proving my existance here because it’s as irrelevant as my asking you to prove your existance to me: completely irrelevant.
Ah, I see: you believe this is not a false dichotomy because the revelation of other religions is invalid and yours is valid. Well, thank you for your personal opinion. I would have preferred arguments and evidence, though.
You’ve missed the point– the question is about things that might happen in the future that could disconfirm your belief in God. The Larry Craig thing is in the past, and people’s reactions to it didn’t shake your faith. The mere fact that wars have always been with us, along with rape and murder aplenty is not enough to shake your faith. In my case, a thing that could happen in the future to compel me to believe in God would be, say… the return of Jesus Christ. That’s supposed to have been almost here for a long time now, so I suppose it still is.
So, what could yet happen that would shake your faith? Please try again.
I daresay there have been plenty of unjust laws in human history, and I also daresay that you yourself would have found some of them pointless, silly, dehumanizing, or even abhorrent, and refused to obey them. So in what way do human laws, always “represent a deeper absolute standard?” And if they don’t always do that, then how do you know it?
Um… so?
Well, I suppose the reason you work hard is because you think your deity wants you to. I don’t need that to motivate me: I enjoy hard work, and I enjoy the fruits of my labor. That is enough for me. You think that’s lame? Again, thank you for your personal opinion.
There have been Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, and Jews who have also coincindentaly made great contributions to science. Surely you don’t see that as supporting the proposition that their religions are true? If not, then neither can you support contributions to science as any kind of supporting factor for Christianity.
If, as you say, atheists cannot verify even their own existence, and this is supposed be some form of argument against atheism because (presumably) Christians can prove their existence, then I’m game: you go first– prove your existence to me. Or at least explain how you know you (or your children) exist and make it convincing that this is a valid way of knowing.
Oh, good. Then I trust you won’t need to trot out the names of any other “authorities” to support your argument… like Francis Schaeffer, who essentially claims that the best argument is no argument at all, and that evidence is useless when compared to the almighty “presupposition.” (Or should I say, “the presupposition of the Almighty?”)
In fact, why not just let God speak for himself instead of setting yourself up as an authority who claims to be able to “view life through the spectacles of scripture” (referring to your blog’s current tag line) presumably with some divinely-inspired clarity that we who don’t view life that way lack?
I mean the worst that Christians do in the name of your deity and much more too, Althusius, and you know it. Please don’t play dumb with me.
Wow! Christianity does that? Humanism does those things too!
Seriously, Althusius, we’ve covered our differences enough– let’s start a sincere conversation about how you, a Christian, and me, a Humanist, and other people of goodwill too can look beyond our differences and work towards those things together right now: free responsible governments, unbounded charity, promotion of learning, prevention of catastrophic war, and advancement of civilization. I acknowledge it’s a big project to work for those worthy outcomes, but I’m up for it if you are.
September 26th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
I used the less traditional meaning of “evolved,” rather than the purist’s mutate-selection. A more appropriate term might be “developed,” or “grew.” What I meant was that becuse the wife and children needed the care they do in the early stages of life, there had to be a reason. Perhaps in the beginning, during the stage where we were merely instinct on legs, this reason was simply that need for protection, which later became a feeling of love. Also, in this theoretical framework, romantic love would have started out as purely animal lust, something that exists for the sole purpose of continuing the species. Then later, as the human race developed forebrains and the ability to actually think, this animal lust wouldn’t be enough, so romantic love was came into being. And just because I don’t believe a theory, doesn’t mean it’s not a valid framework. You asked for an explanation for love without god, and I gave it to you.
I also should have said observable evidence outside of scripture. While the resurrection of Christ may be an accepted fact for you and droves of other Christians, anyone with whom you might have the type of discussion you and I are having has already rejected scripture as a source of fact, therefore making scripture inadmissable in the debate. It would be like if you and I discussing Reagan-era politics, and I said “Everything Hunter Thompson writes is a lie.” Then you say “Ah, but in Generation of Swine, Thompson says…” That came out a bit more muddled than it was when I constructed it in my head, but I hope you get the point.
September 26th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
Also, just to be unpleasant, here’s one of my favorite quotes from a story. I don’t remember wher I read it, but it still has weight.
“An Eskimo went to the local Christian missionary and asked him:
‘If I never knew about Heaven and Hell and sin, would I still go to hell?’
The missionary replied ‘No, you would not’
‘Then why,’ the Eskimo asked earnestly ‘did you tell me?’”