“Free thinkers” never think for themselves. I find that to be a recurring theme. Will we ever find an atheist who rejects Christianity for reasons other than the 5 or so dogmatic irrationalities that are so readily chucked out in ignorance? “Your religion degrades women.” “You rob homosexuals of the joy of their lover.” “Subsitutionary atonement is child abuse.” The more that these statements are made, the more the notion that atheism lacks religiosity becomes absurd. Atheism is a particular worldview, with a particular set of ideas, with particular mentalities concerning ethics and morality. When you sign up for the club, you inevitably endorse a multitude of “free thinking” propagated myths that are forced into your mind. The atheistic worldview thinks for the “free thinker.”
Well, the author of one more blogsite (Loftus endorsed) has decided to plug herself into the mind-controlling, mind-destroying worldview of secular humanism. With the name “Stardust Musings and Thoughts for the Freethinker,” we have someone who has not thought for herself concerning her worldview in quite a while. Now, the “star dust” part of the blog is certainly enjoyable (magnificent pictures of God’s creation). The “free thinker” part is where she has trouble. But today she helps us answer the question, “How Can an Atheist Be Moral?” by posting an excerpt from For Goodness Sake by Dan Barker:
“How does an atheist account for the existence of objective moral values?” I often hear. “If you don’t believe in God, then what is your basis for morality?” We atheists find our basis for morality, of course, in nature. Where else would we look?
Ambiguity does not substitute well for rationality. What is this “nature”? Do atheists derive their basis for morality from flowers and bunnies? From trees and insects? Or perhaps Barker means “human nature.” But that simply begs the question because we are asking where the very moral human nature comes from. Atheism cannot account for a specific “human nature.” In fact, atheism cannot account for thinking and logic altogether. But let’s say that such a nature exists in the atheistic worldview. How does the atheist know that human nature is a rightful basis for morality? And what is the process by which morality is derived from human nature? And is the morality really morality in the true sense of the term?
Remember, the question is “From where does an atheist derive his morality?” The Christian response is that it is borrowed from the Christian worldview. It is simply not sufficient to answer this question by saying that morality is derived from how human’s act. The question is why humans act the way they do. And what is the basis for for making any connection between what humans do and what we should do? Is “morality” simply looking like the human race? Then, whatever the human race does is morality. And if this is the case, any notion of justice in the system of the courts is removed, and any ability for one person to call the act of another person wrong is stolen. If morality is simply “what humans do,” then morality is not morality in any true sense of the word. It becomes descriptive rather than prescriptive. Right and wrong are not what we should do, but what we do do. The atheist, therefore, has no basis whatsoever to ever make the statement, “John should not kill.” He can only make the statement, “John does not kill.” And that is morality?
Most atheists think moral values are real, but that does not mean they are “objective.” They can’t be.
Notice that the question has yet to be answered. Rather, the objection to the answer to the question is answered before the answer is even stated. Barker is well aware that atheistic “morality” is completely subjective, because it is dependent upon 1) the thinking of the individual, and 2) the actions of the world. Number 2 has already been shown above, where morality is simply what we do rather than why we do it, or what we should do. If that is not subjective enough, now place that within the realm of the interpretations of the individual. Wow. But Barker is going to attempt to justify this for us. He’s going to tell us that this extreme subjectivity is A-Ok because no values can be objective:
A value is not a “thing”–it is a function of a mind (which is itself a function). To be objective is to exist independently of a mind. So, an “objective value” is an oxymoron: the existence in the mind of something that is independent of the mind.
I agree: if the value exists simply in the mind of the individual, then it is completely subjective. But what if that value exists in the mind of God? And what if God has placed that same value within the minds of his creatures? Perhaps now we have objective morality. The notion of the non-existence of God necessitates his existence, for if he does not exist, morality, logic, and the uniformity of nature do not exist. If God does not exist, there is no hope that I understand the words on this computer screen, there is no hope that A does not equal non-A, there is no hope that matter as we know it will not be completely different by tomorrow, and that everything ever written in a science book will be worthless, and there is no hope that my next door neighbor won’t break into my house tonight and eat me alive, and his action considered “right” by those who attend the funeral. But thankfully, God does exist, and I thank Mr. Barker for helping me prove that tonight.
However, most atheists think that values, though not objective things in themselves, can be objectively justified by reference to the real world. Our actions have consequences, and those consequences are objective.
More unjustified asserted assumptions. Atheist Dan Barker continues to borrow from the principles of my worldview. “Objectively justified by reference to the real world”? How? Don’t just tell us what “most atheists” think, tell us the basis for their thinking. Why is their thinking correct? He states, “Our actions have consequences.” Yes, but so what? So I kill a guy. The consequence is that he is dead. Perhaps he was my milk man. The consequence is that I will no longer receive milk. But what if I don’t like milk anyway. In fact, what if I detest milk and did myself a favor by killing the milk man? Why is my action of killing him wrong? It doesn’t affect me. Yes, it affects his family and others. But why should I care? Why does the action become wrong simply because others do not like it?
Perhaps morality is simply a general consensus of what everyone likes. But how do we know what everyone likes? I don’t remember taking the survey. And what if everyone likes to kill women? Does killing women then become right? And how do we know that morality can be derived from general consensus? How is this “objectively justified” in any sense?
Although most atheists accept the importance of morality, this is not conceding that “Morality” exists in the universe, a cosmic object waiting to be discovered. The word “morality” is just a label for a concept, and concepts exist only in minds. If no minds existed, no morality would exist.
Morality exists only in minds. But how do I know that what is in my mind is the same thing as what is in your mind? In fact, how do I even know that you have a mind? I mean, of course I have a mind. I presuppose it based upon my existence. It is necessarily assumed. But it is not a necessary assumption that you have a mind. What if I am under the belief that I am the only one in the universe who has a mind? Does what is in my mind then become morality?
But what if moral concepts exist in God’s mind, and what if they are derived from his nature, and what if he has put those very moral concepts into the minds of his creatures? Then we have objective morality. But don’t pretend that we have any “morality” (in the prescriptive sense, concerning what we should do) if its basis is simply in the individual’s perception of the state of the world.
Morality is simply the intention to act in ways that minimize harm. Since harm is natural, its avoidance is a material exercise. Organisms suffer as they bump into their environment, and as rational animals, we humans have some choice about how this happens. If we minimize harm and enhance the quality of life, we are moral. If we don’t, we are immoral or amoral, depending on our intentions. To be moral, atheists have access to the simple tools of reason and kindness. There is no Cosmic Code Book directing our actions.
Harm in what sense? Is this merely physical harm, or does it include emotional and economical harm? Why is it “wrong” for me to openly slander someone? This has no physical harm on me, the person, or on the human race. Perhaps it could have emotional or economical harm. But isn’t the measurement of emotional and economical harm a tad bit over subjective? I mean, would the atheist agree with me if I were to argue that the emotional and economic harm that results from an abortion constitutes that action as “wrong”? Or what if I were to argue that the emotional and economical harm that result from homosexual marriage constitutes that action as “wrong”? How can we possibly, honestly survey the subjective notion of “harm”? But this is often used as an argument: “Whether or not homosexuals marry does not hurt you!” Well, first of all, this presupposes the assumption that something is wrong only if it hurts someone (which seems to be the only (unjustified) basis for morality in the atheistic worldview whatsoever). But this also does not take into account the subjective measurement of “harm.” How much “harm” must be down before an act becomes “hurtful” and therefore “wrong”? What if I simply don’t like homosexual marriage? Is that enough “harm” brought to me to make the action “wrong”? Or, we could put this in the Christian perspective. Homosexuality harms the Christian in two ways 1) it promotes a mentality that is damaging to personal sanctification, and 2) it redefines the family unit. Now, perhaps neither of these two things are correct. But to the Christian, they are still harmful in that they prevent him from accomplishing his goals. What do we do now? We have the homosexual who says that a law against his marriage “harms” him, and we have a Christian who says that a law in support of the marriage “harms” him (but in neither case do we have someone who is physically harmed). Which one is right? The one that “harms” more? How can we possibly measure that? How can we compare physical harm to emotional harm or to economical harm? Is a broken leg more harmful than a lifetime of depression? If so, why?
Well then, maybe we go by consensus: what most people think is most harmful. But how can we possibly arrive at a consensus? Are we going to take a worldwide, or at least geographically relevant, survey of the issue? But even then, how will a majority opinion, or a dictatorship of a 51%, help us arrive at what is more harmful? Perhaps 70% of the population believes a broken leg to be more harmful than a life time of depression. Or, perhaps about 80% of the states believes that the harm against the world by allowing the institution of marriage to be applied to homosexuals is greater than the harm to homosexuals caused by not allowing them to marry (which they do, by the way)? Now what? And is the majority right?
Of course, relative to humanity, certain general actions can be deemed almost uniformly right or wrong. Without the Ten Commandments, would it never have dawned on the human race that there is a problem with killing? The prohibitions against homicide and theft existed millennia before the Israelites claimed the copyright.
This still fails the to answer the questions posed above. What if I believe that the harm made against me by my milk man delivering milk to me every day is more harmful than my eliminating his existence? You might say, “Well, that’s ridiculous!” Why?
The way to be moral is to learn what causes harm and how to avoid it. This means investigating nature–especially human nature: who we are, what we need, where we live, how we function, and why we behave the way we do.
Again, this sounds like a great plan, but how is it going to work? How are we going to “learn what causes harm,” taking into account all of the forms and degrees of harm? And how are we going to arrive at a consensus concerning “what causes harm and how to avoid it”? And if we do arrive at a consensus, does that mean it is a right standard? Again, people change. What they think is harmful changes. What they like and dislike changes. What if the consensus of men is that the existence of women is harmful, and what if the consensus of women is that the existence of men is harmful? What then becomes “morality”? Which group is bigger, perhaps? But then you might say, “Either view is ridiculous, because without the existence of either group, the human race could not continue.” Well, what if it is the unanimous consent of the human race that the human race does not need tocontinue, or even should not continue? In your worldview, is there any reason which necessitates the continuing existence of the human race?
Why should I treat my neighbor nicely? Because we are all connected. We are part of the same species, genetically linked. Since I value myself and my species, and the other species to whom we are related, I recognize that when someone is hurting, my natural family is suffering. By nature, those of us who are mentally healthy recoil from pain and wish to see it ended.
What if I don’t value myself and my species? And what if my species doesn’t value itself? Does killing then become right? If “no,” then why not? Why are you placing some external standard upon the “free thinking values” of the individual and corporate mind? If “yes,” well there’s your “morality” for you.
…Yet notice how leading theists deal with the real world: “Ye have the poor with you always,” said the “loving” Jesus, who never lifted a finger to eradicate poverty, wasting precious ointment on his own luxury rather than selling it to feed the hungry (Matthew 26:6-11).
Frankly, Jesus didn’t have the same atheistic, naturalistic, and irrational agenda that you have, Mr. Barker. Jesus cared about the soul. He cared about eternity. He had an objective morality that was based upon himself, and he knew what was important.
Jefferson may have been wrong to call compassion an “instinct” because many appear not to have it–it seems optional. But it is fortunate that there are enough of us who love life enough to protect ourselves from those who don’t. We have systems of law, enforcement, justice, and defense. We encourage kind, ethical actions through moral education and critical thinking.
If I haven’t already destructed Dan Barker’s statements, he does it for me! His statements here completely ruin whatever basis for morality he thought he had. “Compassion” is optional to the human mind. Not everyone shares this goal. Barker, therefore, cannot act as if he shares this common goal to continue the existence of the human race and make everyone happy. Most people simply care about what makes them happy. So what happens if Mr. Barker’s views become a minority? What happens if the consensus of the human race is to destroy the human race? Is killing wrong then, Mr. Barker? Maybe in Dan Barker’s mind it will be, but Dan Barker has no basis for his morality other than his personal views, and everything that he has written in this article is simply a lie. This paragraph shows us that Barker does not really believe the hogwash he has promoted as his basis for his “morality.” He just cares about his own personal views, and he wants the rest of the world to follow them. But Barker isn’t God. Only someone like God can have the whole world follow one system of objective morality. Only if God exists can we be moral people. The contrast speaks volumes.
But most believers, including Christians who are ordered to “bring into captivity every thought unto the obedience of Christ,” have an underlying distrust of human reasoning. Yearning for absolutes, they perceive relativism–the recognition that actions must be judged in context–as something dangerous, when it is the only way we can be truly moral.
Whatever concerns theists have had against relativism have been proven here: there is nothing wrong with eliminating the human race if it is the consensus of the human race that the human race should be eliminated.
Theists are afraid people will think for themselves; atheists are afraid they won’t.
I’ll let the reader respond to this one.
Heh, well that's certainly a funny comment in light of the post above. I just destroyed whatever basis for morality you thought you had, bud! And this is your response?
ReplyDeleteNice and scholarly :-)
JustinOther:
ReplyDeleteAre you actually saying that there is no other basis for morality, logic and the uniformity of nature than god?
Yes, that is what I am saying. This post dealt specifically with morality, and I believe I have shown that the notion that an atheist has a basis for morality is absurd. The atheist might appeal to the individual or consensus, but I have shown the problem with these subjective appeals.
As far as the uniformity of nature, can you account for the uniformity of nature in an atheistic worldview? I mean, sure, the past seems "uniform" based upon what we have seen of it, but how do you know the future will be like the past? That very notion begs the question, for it assumes a uniformity of nature in trying to prove the uniformity of nature.
The same goes for the laws of logic. How can you account for any objective "laws" in an atheistic worldview?
It is my belief that you, in fact, borrow from my worldview when you use these things. If you’d like, I’ll write the argument out in syllogistic form:
1. For logic, the uniformity of nature, and objective morality to exist, an eternal, immutable, perfect God must exist.
2. Logic, the uniformity of nature, and objective morality do exist.
3. Therefore, an eternal, immutable, perfect God exists.
That in itself seems illogical.
Why? I mean, if you can give me a basis for the laws of logic, for instance, apart from the existence of an immutable, eternal, and perfect God, then, by all means, do so.
Do you totally discount the existence of all things, whether abstract or concrete, that did not arise from god?
Yes, I do, but that is beside the point, because that is not the argument here. I'm not arguing that logic cannot exist apart from God because of my worldview's doctrine of creation (in fact, in my worldview, God did not "create" logic, anymore than he "created" holiness. Holiness and logic exist because God exists; they are his attributes).
Rather, the point here is that the atheistic worldview cannot account for objective laws, in particular, the laws of logic. Again, if you can show me otherwise then I invite you.
I could just as easily state it as such:
The notion of the existence of God necessitates his non-existence, for if he exists, morality, logic, and the uniformity of nature do not exist.
This is not the atheists viewpoint, however.
You could do so, but then you would embrace an unacceptable and irrational worldview. The debate between whether or not Christianity is "true" necessitates and presupposes the laws of logic (otherwise the word “true” is meaningless). So a worldview that cannot account for the laws of logic is unacceptable, by definition, in this debate.
If I were an ancient Greek, I would tell you that the notion of the non-existance of Zeus necessitates his existance, for if he did not exist, morality, logic, and the uniformity of nature do not exist.
I’m sure you would discount that statement as readilly as I do. So how, then, can you make that argument about YOUR god?
Even if the transcendental argument did not account for the Christian God, the argument in itself does not need to. For, you are an atheist, and the first step is to prove the existence of a God. Of course, as a Christian I do not simply argue for theism, but for Christian theism. And, there is a whole history of Christian apologetics that account for the irrationality of all other religions.
But, however, the argument, as if fully developed, does not simply argue for theism, but for Christian theism. Zeus is not immutable in Greek mythology. He is not eternal. He is not perfect.
I appologize for trolling, however, I could not resist the opportunity to discuss this with you. Thank you.
You aren't trolling. I mean really, the standards at Stardust's blog are simply unfair. You're asking civil questions, which deserve civil answers. I don't know how it all of a sudden became "trolling" to offer a differing opinion.
(By the way, I answered your questions over at Stardust's blog. She simply deleted my comment, her explanation being, "To all xians...throw away your medieval beliefs and join the secular world. It is so life-renewing to dump the imaginary sky daddy." Now, really, is that fair?)
Evan.
My basis for morality as an atheist is that it evolved within the species as did other attributes (physical and otherwise) because it was advantageous in survival and reproduction. THerefore, those who developed morality reproduced more than those without.
ReplyDeleteHence the subjectivity involved, and the problems posed in my article above.
I do not know that the future will be uniform, and I don't believe anyone can. It is very possible that I will wake in the morning and blue will be black and up will be down. I believe that there is a mathematical formula of sorts (in a manner of speaking) too complex to be fully understood at this point in the evolution of the human brain which keeps order in the universe. I don't feel the need to have order explained by a deity, as I believe science will one day discover the answer (as we have found that the world is not flat and it revolves around the sun, not vice versa)
Then do you affirm or disaffirm the uniformity of nature? My argument is that an atheistic worldview cannot account for a uniformity of nature (even though science requires it). Do you agree?
As for laws of logic, I refer again to the above. Logic, and the ability to make sense of ones surroundings and understand ones environment, would be integral to survival as a species. Again, those who posessed logic survived to reproduce.
But is logic objective? Is there anywhere in the universe where A can equal non-A? Is it possible that the future will show that A equals non-A?
As for the syllogistic form you spelled out, you basically state that there is a god because there is a god. This is a circular argument, as I stated before. When I reversed your comment earlier, I basically stated there is no god because there is no god. Neither argument makes logical sense.
1. The argument is not circular. I hate to say "trust me," but it simply isn't. It follows normal logical language. It is a transcendental argument. Do you mean that it affirms the consequent? Because it doesn't do that either. See this post for further details.
2. The argument is not that God exists because he exists. The argument is that God exists because logic, etc, exists. Logic, etc, presupposes the existence of God. Logic exists necessarily (it is a necessary assumption in “rational” discussion). That is a unanimous agreement. If logic did not exist, we would not be having this conversation. And logic, the argument states, cannot exist without an eternal, immutable, and perfect God. But logic does exist. Therefore, God exists.
3. Your reversal did not argue that God did not exist because he does not exist. Rather, you argued (in effect), that God does not exist because logic does not exist. In negating it, you abandoned the realm of logic. You wrote: "The notion of the existence of God necessitates his non-existence, for if he exists, morality, logic, and the uniformity of nature do not exist." In other words, the second proposition would be that logic does not. This would be the negation:
1. For logic, the uniformity of nature, and objective morality to exist, an eternal, immutable, perfect God must exist.
2. Logic, the uniformity of nature, and objective morality do not exist.
3. Therefore, an eternal, immutable, perfect God does not exist.
This argument makes logical sense, in theory, but it affirms that there is no such thing as "logical sense," and self-destructs because it itself is a logical argument. Hence, the reason why this is not equally acceptable.
However, can a muslim not use the same argument? Can a muslim not claim that logic and order cannot exist if there isn't a god (their god)? Do they not actually USE that argument, the same as you?
I've never seen a Muslim use this argument. Furthermore, the Muslim God is capricious, not immutable, eternal, and perfect, so the argument does not apply.
Evan.
this is the part of the argument that I am supposed to believe that god exists because logic exists. See, this makes no sense to me. this “presupposes” the existance of god. That in itself negates the entire argument. WHY can logic not exist without god. In my view it does exist without god. You have not proven to me that it can’t.
ReplyDeleteHeh, well that is the very proposition that we are debating. :-)
The fact that you do not accept the premise does not then destroy the argument as being sound in itself. You said it was circular. But this is not the case. Now, you may disagree with the premise (which is why we are debating, obviously), but that does not make the argument irrational in and of itself. If I can establish the premise, then I can establish the existence of God.
How is this subjective? How is evolution resulting in logic and morality subjective? Assume for a moment that god does not exist and evolution were the basis for our existance. Would morality and logic as a result of evolution then be objective (as all beings would have it as a result of evolution as opposed to being given it by god)?
Something cannot be objective apart from being universal. Something cannot be universal apart from the existence of God.
My post above spent some time showing the subjectivity of atheistic morality. Of course, I'm not going to restate that here, considering that you haven't taken the time to respond to what I have already written concerning the subject. In my opinion, my above post proves the premise of the transcendental argument. You may disagree, but that is the importance of debating this post.
Concerning Logic, let's say that it was something that we all came to learn through evolution. How did we learn it? How is it possible to learn that A cannot equal non-A? You may say that, after a series of experiences, we found, for instance, that apples cannot be the same thing as not-apples. But how did we find this out, apart from first assuming the laws of logic? You see, we might have come to "learn" that the statement "apples cannot equal non-apples" is "true," but the very word "true" presupposes the laws of logic (there is no “true” or “false” apart from logic). You see, these laws cannot be learned without first being assumed. The notion that "I learned that the laws of logic are true" begs the question, because it assumed the laws of logic in its use of the word "true."
I affirm the uniformity of nature, as natural laws tend toward order and away from dissaray. Why can an atheistic worldview not account for uniformity. Atheism does not assume chaos.
But how do you know that it is uniform? That is the question at hand. Science requires a uniformity of nature. Without uniformity, science is meaningless. Without uniformity, there is no guarantee that what had these certain properties in one experiment will be the same in the next. Therefore, without uniformity, there is not science. But how can uniformity be known or proven? It cannot be proven scientifically, because that would assume a uniformity to begin with.
There may well be somewhere in the universe where A equals non-A, however I am not well versed enough in the subject to discuss this with any ccertainty.
Then, if the laws of logic are not universal, they are no longer objective. There is no guarantee that A cannot equal non-A here, and we have no way of knowing that we are speaking the same language. I might as well declare myself the winner of this debate. In fact, we both won at the same time. How's about that? Is there anything that restricts me from making that statement?
The reverse would actually be this:
1.For logic, the uniformity of nature, and objective morality to exist, an eternal, immutable, perfect God must not exist.
2.Logic, the uniformity of nature, and objective morality do exist.
3.Therefore, an eternal, immutable, perfect God does not exist.
Therefore I have used the same argument in reverse and said that there is no god because there is logic, etc. Why does MY argument not work as well?
Your argument presupposes the negation of my premise. We are debating my premise. If my premise is correct, your premise is destroyed. You would, of course, have to justify your premise.
According to Webster’s, this means either unpredictable, whimsical or impulsive. How is that the case?
There is a score of Muslim apologetics (from a Christian perspective) that deals with this. But last I heard, you weren't a Muslim. You're an atheist, arguing against theism in general. I'm a Christian, in support of Christian theism.
Let’s then assume that we are arguing MY premise. Would that then mean that your argument presupposes the negation of MINE? And if that were the case and my premise was correct, yours would be destroyed.
ReplyDeleteYou can defend your premise, if you want. Though, since this is my post, and since I took the time to defend my premise in quite a lengthy format, it would be kind of you to deal with what I have said. :-)
How can you have a rational argument when you hold presuppositions.
How can you have a rational argument when you hold presuppositions? Do you deny that you have presuppositions?
I am willing to view your argument from the point of assuming the existance of god, and in that case your argument is correct. If you could view my argument from the standpoint of the NON-existance of god, then my argument is correct.
I haven't used my presuppositions as the basis of proving God's existence. You don't have to share my presuppositions to see the logic behind my arguments. In fact, you may be convinced by my arguments, agree that the Christian God exists, and only then adopt my presuppositions.
This does not answer the question.
1. you said “Furthermore, the Muslim God is capricious, not immutable, eternal, and perfect, so the argument does not apply.”
2. I asked “According to Webster’s, this means either unpredictable, whimsical or impulsive. How is that the case?”
3. Although I am not a muslim, cannot a muslim use the same argument and, if so, can I not?
I told you that the Muslim God is not eternal, not immutable, and not perfect. This is simply Muslim doctrine. If you don't believe me, you can look it up, but we have more pressing matters here.
For instance, I have several paragraphs that were simply breezed over by you:
Concerning Logic, let's say that it was something that we all came to learn through evolution. How did we learn it? How is it possible to learn that A cannot equal non-A? You may say that, after a series of experiences, we found, for instance, that apples cannot be the same thing as not-apples. But how did we find this out, apart from first assuming the laws of logic? You see, we might have come to "learn" that the statement "apples cannot equal non-apples" is "true," but the very word "true" presupposes the laws of logic (there is no “true” or “false” apart from logic). You see, these laws cannot be learned without first being assumed. The notion that "I learned that the laws of logic are true" begs the question, because it assumed the laws of logic in its use of the word "true."
and
But how do you know that it is uniform? That is the question at hand. Science requires a uniformity of nature. Without uniformity, science is meaningless. Without uniformity, there is no guarantee that what had these certain properties in one experiment will be the same in the next. Therefore, without uniformity, there is not science. But how can uniformity be known or proven? It cannot be proven scientifically, because that would assume a uniformity to begin with.
and
Then, if the laws of logic are not universal, they are no longer objective. There is no guarantee that A cannot equal non-A here, and we have no way of knowing that we are speaking the same language. I might as well declare myself the winner of this debate. In fact, we both won at the same time. How's about that? Is there anything that restricts me from making that statement?
Is there a reason why you chose to not respond to these?
JustinOther:
ReplyDeleteAs I said in my last comment, the argument is sound within itself. Of course, the premise must be justified, but that is what we are attempting to do or not do in this dialogue, is it not? I mean, of course you do not accept my premise. You aren't a Christian. But that is why we are debating, remember? ;-)
The debate isn't fruitless. In fact, all we have really done here so far is define the argument. Now it is time to debate the premise. You ask for the "proof" of my premise, but you are commenting on a post that offers exactly that, one you have yet to respond to.
Furthermore, why haven't you responded to these statements?
Concerning Logic, let's say that it was something that we all came to learn through evolution. How did we learn it? How is it possible to learn that A cannot equal non-A? You may say that, after a series of experiences, we found, for instance, that apples cannot be the same thing as not-apples. But how did we find this out, apart from first assuming the laws of logic? You see, we might have come to "learn" that the statement "apples cannot equal non-apples" is "true," but the very word "true" presupposes the laws of logic (there is no “true” or “false” apart from logic). You see, these laws cannot be learned without first being assumed. The notion that "I learned that the laws of logic are true" begs the question, because it assumed the laws of logic in its use of the word "true."
and
But how do you know that it is uniform? That is the question at hand. Science requires a uniformity of nature. Without uniformity, science is meaningless. Without uniformity, there is no guarantee that what had these certain properties in one experiment will be the same in the next. Therefore, without uniformity, there is not science. But how can uniformity be known or proven? It cannot be proven scientifically, because that would assume a uniformity to begin with.
and
Then, if the laws of logic are not universal, they are no longer objective. There is no guarantee that A cannot equal non-A here, and we have no way of knowing that we are speaking the same language. I might as well declare myself the winner of this debate. In fact, we both won at the same time. How's about that? Is there anything that restricts me from making that statement?
I mean, I can certainly understand how time or schedule would not permit you to respond to these statements or to interact with me concerning the topic in the future. But that does not mean that my statements do not exist. I'm fine with you not responding to what I have to say. I am not fine, however, with you passing over paragraphs I have written in silence and then at the same time claiming I have offered no proof.
Thanks,
Evan.