Tightening the Noose

How do you stop an atheist's argument from drowning? Take your foot off its head!

Today, I don't think I'll do that. Instead I'll continue to press my foot down on the argument, submerge it, and watch it's lifeless body float away.

It all started with THIS POST, which prompted THIS RESPONSE, which generated yet ANOTHER RESPONSE.

At this juncture we have yet another response by Daniel Morgan. His latest response is a telling commentary on the state of the debate, and how he, at least sub-consciously, views it. It's to his latest that I now turn.

"This whole matter boils down to two important concepts, original sin and "election"."

Fine, and I take this as a tacit admission that all the other points I've been arguing for are counted in our favor.

"Original sin has been argued against by fellow Christians and by heretics for years."

Yes, I'm sadly aware of this. Of course this has absolutely ZERO logical weight in the argument at hand. Furthermore, the problem with these arguments is that these people cannot turn around and now claim the imputed righteousness of Christ on their behalf! If they want to deny Adam's imputed unrighteousness then they don't get the imputation of the second Adam either.

"It is a foundational doctrine, against which I will not argue that it can be supported from the present Christian Bible (just as slavery can be)."

Is this how Morgan handles the arguments I gave for original sin in my second post? The question is *does* the Bible support this.

Secondly, notice the red herring brought into the discussion (i.e., slavery).

"That said, I strongly disagree with the logical basis of such a doctrine."

Notice below that he will not at all show how the "logic" of original sin is faulty.

The logical basis is the idea of federal headship, or representation. But Daniel Morgan failed to bring this up. Therefore it appears that Daniel Morgan didn't know what the "logical basis" of the argument was. If he didn't know what the logical basis was, then why say he has a problem with said basis? If he did know what the basis was, then why not mention or critique the basis.

"Because you presuppose the Bible as true, and I do not, as has often been pointed out, this comes down to a matter of premises."

Notice the tacit admition of defeat. The original question was: "does the BIBLE teach original sin." Daniel previously had challenged me to prove this idea from the Bible. Morgan had originally postured this way:

"Of course, the way to resolve this is to explain how "original sin" is attached to election of a fetus, how it has some kind of intrinsic sin value which is justly met with the wrath of God. Personally, I see you descending into some pretty obscure interpretations to support your contention. The idea that fetuses and infants have some sort of willful sin is obvious nonsense. So, original sin is then all you have to go on, and aside from poetic references to David's "i was conceived in sin" I challenge you to substantiate your P2."

See, he challenged me to prove this doctrine from the Bible. At this point what he now is doing is saying, "well forget what the Bible says about it, let's just look at it from an ethical perspective and see if it holds (as we'll note he does below).

Originally the hub-bub started when I critiqued the view that we should shoot infants to get them to heaven. I argued from a biblical basis and showed how this argument cannot be given if biblical premises are assumed. Thus the argument attacks a straw man. The first counter was to try and show that I could not show the Bible supported my argument. Whence I did we don't here an "oh yeah, you're right, well, let's move on to something else; I have other criticisms to give." What we see is a sneaky and underhanded attempt to shift the ground of the debate.

Second, I don't see how this comes down to a matter of premises? I don't even know what that means. What it comes down to is exegesis, and Daniel Morgan is out gunned in this fight. That being the case, he tries to retreat to his outlaw hide out and fight on more familiar turf.

But the problem is that back in town he was shot. He is bleeding all the way to the hide out. He can try to go down in a blaze of glory, and the law can oblige, but we already know he's been shot and his last little outburst is an attempt to go down in the history books as at least having done something. This is all fine, as long as we know that the real fight happened back in town and the kid (as they call him) lost there. Let's now turn to his last hoorah.

"I will argue original sin is false on the basis of the following premises, while you presuppose the Bible is true [which entails a million necessary other premises and explanations and interpretations] and argue it is true:"

And let's remember all that originally mattered was if the Bible taught said doctrine. I already knew you disagreed with it. You didn't need to wait three posts to let us know that.

Let's now look at his argument (against original sin, remember):

1. Morality is based upon the thoughts, choices and actions belonging to a conscious agent
2. If agents are not conscious, they cannot be moral [at any particular moment in question - don't be silly and say that sleep negates this premise]
3. Fetuses are not conscious moral agents
C2. Therefore, fetuses cannot be held to any standard of morality.

This argument fails for many reasons:

i. I deny P1 and so does Christianity, thus it cannot be leveled against the doctrine of original sin since that doctrine cannot be taken out of the system which it's found in.

ii. This premise (1) leads to moral relativism.

iii. P1 allows no moral utterances to ever be the same. When Tom and Pete say that murder is wrong what's happening is that Tom thinks it's wrong because it's based on *his* thoughts and Pete thinks it's wrong because it's based on *his* thoughts.

iv. What is meant by "choices" here? Is Daniel not a physicalist who believes the laws of physics, biology, chemistry, etc determine our thoughts, choices, and actions? If so, then Daniel cannot believe is own P1 for what sense does it make to say that moral prescriptions are based on descriptive laws of physics and such.

v. P2 does not argue against original sin, and thus Daniel can't use this argument against original sin. P2 assumes actual transgressions committed by an agent and not the imputed guilt "inherited" by all of his. This comes nowhere close to dealing with the concept of representation and corporate solidarity taught in the Bible.

vi. P3 is unproven, and, originally, we were talking about all children before the age of accountability. Furthermore, what is "consciousness" on Daniel's materialist point of view? It may be that consciousness is a myth given materialism, and thus no one is a conscious moral agent on Daniel's view. So, his argument does not even follow.

vii. The worst here is the conclusion. Notice that he affirms the antecedent which would bring the conclusion "they cannot be moral." But notice that Daniel changes his conclusion to "they cannot be held to a moral standard." But this was not the consequent of his modus ponens! An egregious logical blunder.

viii. On a representationalist view all men can be held accountable to the moral standard that Adam was under.

ix. Thus since Daniel didn't even come close to touching the biblical doctrine of original sin, his argument totally fails. Furthermore, his conclusion goes beyond the premise, he uses vague and ambiguous terms and, prima facie, uses terms inconsistent with his materialism.

His second argument is more to the point:

1. Individual morality is based upon personal responsibility
2. For justice to occur, moral agents are held responsible for their own choices and not for the choices of others, nor actions over which they have no control
3. "Original sin" implies that individuals are responsible for the choices of other conscious agents
4. Therefore, "original sin" cannot be the basis of a just and logical moral philosophy

i. Note that p1 differs from p1 above. Which one is morality "based" on? Responsibility or thoughts, choices and actions.

ii. P2 is denied by the concept of federal headship. There's no *argument* against original sin here, just an assertion against it.

iii. P2 is demonstrably false. People, schools, and nations are constantly "held accountable" for the moral choices of others. For example, if the football team cheats then the whole school gets blacked-out. If my son smashes my neighbors window and kills her dog, I'm held responsible. These examples can be multiplied ad nauseum.

iv. P2 assumes a freedom that Daniel's materialism doesn't allow for. If we are all determined by the laws of physics how can we have "control" over those actions."

v. Adam did what we all would have done.

vi. Daniel cannot even account for morality.

vii. The conclusion goes beyond the premises.

viii. I deny that "original sin" is "the basis" for morality, so this is no argument against Christianity.

ix. Thus we're justified in rejecting this argument as well.

So much for going down in a blaze of glory, Daniel's firing blanks.

We can go on all day, and I am far from a philosopher, but I can dredge up far better arguments than mine from a text on ethics, I am sure.

Is this the point where I insert one of these: LOL?

The point remains crystal clear -- to hold a fetus morally accountable for something its great-great-great grandfather chose is as logical as a purple elephant circling the earth as a satellite. Your doctrine is intrinsically flawed.

Well,

i. You'd actually have to *show* how it's illogical.

ii. There is nothing "illogical" about a "purple elephant circling the earth as a satellite." It may be false, impossible (physically), etc., but it's not "illogical" since there is no law of logic violated in saying such a thing.

iii. Holding a person morally accountable for something the laws of physics determined he'd do is about as silly as believing that purple elephants orbit the earth as satellites.

iv. Your doctrine is intrinsically flawed.

v. Hint: I'm not scared by tough talk and mere assertions that we have all these supposed problems in our system. One could say that Triablogue is very Missourian about grand assertions, i.e., "show me."