Thursday, December 07, 2006

The faith of a militant fideist

TOUCHSTONE SAID:

“My argument is that that morale rationale is a good one -- it's clearly to the Judaeo-Christian framework, in my view. But Calvindude, and now Steve, have taken to saying that such a rationale doesn't exist!”

i) You have been changing the subject throughout the course of this thread.

ii) I never denied that an atheist can have a rationale. That’s not the issue.

The question at issue is whether he has a rational rationale. Is his rationale rationally well-founded?

The Marquis de Sade had a rationale. So what?

“But, while take a dim view of atheistic moral rationales, I do grant that they have been formulated and advanced.”

This is a straw man argument since I never said otherwise.

Yes, secular value systems have been formulated and advanced by such secular luminaries as Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Herbert Spencer, Peter Singer, and the Marquis to Sade.

So what?

“As for restraint making individuals good, I don't suppose that makes one good in the spiritual or righteousness sense. But in the civic sense, as opposed to indulgence in the crime of murder, rape, robbery, or mayhem, I would definitely say that refraining from these acts is good’.”

Touchstone is now reverting to the elementary confusion between the question of whether an atheist (or idolater) can ever do the right thing (or refrain from doing the wrong thing), and whether an atheist has a rationally compelling basis for doing the right thing.

“The atheist says his secular moral framework is true. You say the Christian moral framework is true. I say the Christian moral framework is true.”

i) To begin with, not every atheist is an advocate of secular ethics. Some secular thinkers admit that a secular outlook commits them to some form of moral relativism, viz. Russell, Ruse, Mackie, Dawkins, Nielsen, and Quentin Smith, to name a few.

ii) Yes, Nietzsche and I don’t see on to eye on morality. Singer and I don’t see eye to eye on morality.

Does that mean we split the difference? Nietzsche gets to exterminate half the Jews while I get to save the other half? Singer gets to butcher half the babies while I get to save the other half?

iii) I don’t merely *say* that my position is true. I have often *argued* for my position.

“Is it true because there's two of us, and one atheist? Hope not, or he'll go get two atheist buddies.”

Do you cultivate intellectual frivolity, or does this come naturally to you?

“But what do you mean by ‘normative’? Is Steve Hays now normative? Why isn't Hume normative? I don't see how saying this is a ‘normative issue’ is anything more than begging the question.”

That’s because there’s a problem with your eyesight. You are citing examples of secular ethicists (Hume, Mill) to illustrate the existence of secular ethical systems.

But that’s a purely descriptive exercise. No one denies the existence of secular ethical systems.

Rather, the question at issue is whether these secular alternatives are any good. Do they lay a solid foundation, or a sandy foundation, for morality?

Jeffrey Dahmer was a secular ethicist. He had a moral framework. Social Darwinism. He appealed to Darwinism to justify his mass murder and culinary taste.

The real question is not whether he had a rationale for what he did, but whether his reasoning was sound.

Sorry you’re so offended by my value-judgments. I guess from your pluralistic viewpoint, I get to choose my menu while Dahmer gets to choose his own menu.

Tolerance is a beautiful thing—until you end up in the refrigerator, next to the pork and beans.

“If the Christian God exists as we claim, then the atheists are wrong, and their morality is founded on a lie.”

i) Depends on what you mean by a “claim.” If you’re treating the Christian truth-claim as a defeasible hypothesis, then I disagree.

ii) In addition, these are asymmetrical propositions. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Christianity is false, its falsity would not thereby validate secular ethics.

It isn’t a choice between Christian ethics and secular ethics. Rather, it’s a choice between moral realism and moral antirealism. The alternative to Christian ethics isn’t secular ethics. Rather, the alternative to Christian ethics is moral relativism.

If the Christian is right, then we do have a source and standard of moral absolutes; if the Christian is wrong, then neither the Christian nor the non-Christian (atheist, agnostic, idolater) has a source and standard of moral absolutes.

The Christian worldview has winners and losers; a non-Christian worldview has no winners, only losers.

“If no god exists, then the Christians are wrong, and our morality is based on a lie. Or it could be neither of these ideas is right, and they are *both* based on a lie.”

From your perspective, not mine. No, Christianity cannot be wrong. I’m a transcendental theist. Apart from God, nothing can be true or false, right or wrong. The existence of God is not a falsifiable proposition, for the existence of God is the precondition for anything to be falsifiable. There can be no truth or falsehood without truth-conditions, and there can be no truth-conditions without God.

For supporting arguments, see some of the material by Anderson, Welty, and Pruss, posted on this blog.

“But that's the Big Question, isn't it.”

A question for whom? You or me? You or an atheist (assuming there’s a difference).

“It seems Calvindude is convinced that his pronunciation pretty much settles the matter, for Christian, Buddhist, atheist and Zoroastrian. Are you claiming the same here.”

Yes, Calvindude operates with the eccentric notion that a professing Christian is someone who actually happens to believe that Christianity is true. Where he came by this crazy idea, I don’t know, but life is stranger than fiction.

Based on this utterly eccentric notion of his, he also believes that when he is talking to a fellow professing believer, is okay for both them to act as if Christianity is exactly what it claims to be…as in…you know…true.

I understand how hard it is to get inside such an aberrant mindset, but it’s like one evolutionary biologist talking to another evolutionary biologist, where they think it’s okay to take evolutionary biology for granted. Pretty weird, I know.

But things get even worse. Calvindude is also one of those unconscionably arrogant Christians who thinks it’s all right, when dialoguing with an unbeliever, to maintain his Christian identity.

Calvindude is so arrogant that when he enters into a dialogue with an unbeliever, he takes the outlandish position that it’s permissible for him to continue acting like a Christian, as if the Christian faith were actually true and rationally superior to the alternatives!

Yes, I realize it’s shocking to contemplate the sorry fact that, in the 21C, there are still some backward corners of the world where the Gospel According to St. Spong have yet to penetrate. But with your help we’ll rectify the situation.

“It seems that Utilitarianism per J.S. Mill and friends can lay claim to some level of objectivity -- evaluation of morals empirically, based on outcomes and observations -- but Christian morality is based on subjective belief. Belief in the Christian God is a subjective axiom required for it, and would seem to be make Christian morality fail your own test.”

Several problems:

i) Utilitarianism always falters on the justification of the “good.” What makes the common good “good”?

ii) Is Christian morality based on a subjective belief?

By definition, belief has a subjective dimension. It’s a psychological state.

But there’s also a difference between true and false beliefs, based, in part, on their correspondence, or lack thereof, between the mental state of the subject and the extramental object of belief, as well as the extramental evidence—not to mention the extramental rules of evidence.

iii) You are treating the Christian belief-system as if it were an axiomatic system with unprovable first principles. Maybe that’s your model of the Christian faith.

But it’s not my model—and I daresay that it isn’t Calvindude’s, either.

iv) You’re problem is that you happen to be a judgmental fideist, but if you’re a fideist, you shouldn’t be judgmental, and if you’re judgmental, you shouldn’t be a fideist.

v) You seem to define Christian faith as belief over against knowledge.

Because, according to you, Christian faith falls short of knowledge, and because, according to you, the non-Christian alternatives are in the same boat, you wax indignant whenever you encounter Christians who don’t buy into your fideism and attendant relativism.

But you only have a right to your moral outrage if you subscribe to moral absolutes, and you only have a right to that appeal if you ditch you fideism and relativism.

From what I can tell, your basic problem is that you are a reactionary. You are rebelling against your fundy upbringing, and you get very emotional over any statement you associate with the position you are trying to put behind you as you attempt to stake out some mediating position. Unfortunately for you, any mediating position is going to be an unstable compromise, which is why you constantly contradict yourself and hopscotch from one adversarial posture to another.

One wonders where you will be 5 or 10 years from now. Given your abusive treatment of someone as customarily charitable as Calvindude, I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if your current position isn’t a transitional phase on the way to atheism or agnosticism.

36 comments:

  1. Steve, you said above:

    "One wonders where you will be 5 or 10 years from now. Given your abusive treatment of someone as customarily charitable as Calvindude, I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if your current position isn’t a transitional phase on the way to atheism or agnosticism."

    Does Touchstone have a *real* choice in the matter, as to where he'll be in 5-10 years, or is it predetermined, and he's just along for the ride?

    ReplyDelete
  2. VanBahnsen said...

    "Does Touchstone have a *real* choice in the matter, as to where he'll be in 5-10 years, or is it predetermined, and he's just along for the ride?"

    Nice diversionary tactic. By trying to change the subject you prove that you can't address the substance of the post. Your intellectual retreat is duly noted.

    I've blogged on compatibilism many times before. So that's two strikes against you.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Nice non-answer, Steve.

    You are the master of that.

    ReplyDelete
  4. CalvinDude acted like an arse towards T-stone from the get-go, insulting his faith and accusing him of being an unbeliever.

    Notice how all Steve does is move the goalposts from his original assertion that "So, yes, Mr. Shermer, left to our own devices it’s only a matter of time before rape, robbery, and murder would become public policy. Indeed, that prospect has played out to one degree or another whenever an unchristian regime has been in power for long."

    Now he's saying, "Nevermind that I said X (rape, murder, robbery will play out when 'left to our own devices', or when an unchristian regime rules) well, uh, here's the thing, Y, and Z..."

    ReplyDelete
  5. Steve,

    When you engage in a debate with an atheist, you are both coming to the table with a different set of pre-suppositions. So the lowest level question is this:

    Whose presuppositions take precedence?

    I think Calvindude has shown that he finds his presuppositions superior simply because they are his; that's enough proof for him, apparently. But what say you? Do your presuppositions take precedence over John Loftus' in any debate/discussion you might have? If so, why?

    The model I proceed from is something like a courtroom -- a cantankerous courtroom. There are at least two competing paradigms that are trying to advance their case. But just like the courtroom, the initial starting point is one of neutrality; it's not prejudiced either way, but will let things be decided (to the extent they get decided) on the merits of the arguments, and evidences presented.

    But you and Calvindude strike me as plaintiffs arguing for prejudice in th court. The defendant *must* be guilty, because it *cannot* be otherwise! Or, as you have it:

    From your perspective, not mine. No, Christianity cannot be wrong. I’m a transcendental theist. Apart from God, nothing can be true or false, right or wrong. The existence of God is not a falsifiable proposition, for the existence of God is the precondition for anything to be falsifiable. There can be no truth or falsehood without truth-conditions, and there can be no truth-conditions without God.

    The atheist isn't bested by the merits of your argument, but rather, he's down by law, according to you. You and Calvindude are taking the position of lawyer, judge and jury, for yourselves. No one is surprised at the outcome of a kangaroo court.

    Me, I'm just an advocate. I don't pretend I'm "normative", or the judge, or the jury. Readers here will decide for themselves; they are the judge and jury here. In a courtroom, we expect to get some adjudication, a disposition in the case, a ruling. Here, we don't even get that. We get comments on an ad-hoc basis, but for every commenter, there are a lot readers who think "Good point!" to this, or "Rubbish!" at that, and move on, pushed not at all either way, or a little, or possibly a lot.

    So, when you ask:
    Rather, the question at issue is whether these secular alternatives are any good. Do they lay a solid foundation, or a sandy foundation, for morality?

    Yes, that's the question, but that's the question for the jury, not for me or you, the lawyer to pronounce judgment on. We *advocate*, others judge our arguments.

    Or at least that's how I think it should be. Why?

    Well, it's a Golden Rule thing for me. I want to treat others the way I'd like to be treated. Often, when I debate things with atheists, they pull a "Calvindude" on me; Christianity *can't* be true, because it simply *isn't* true, and Christianity is internally inconsistent according to *their* definition of what determined "consistency". I don't get offended by this, any more than I'm offended by Calvindude pulling this kind of thing here. But I do point out how futile it makes the entire conversation. The atheist, when taking thing Calvindude line, is simply refusing to hear, consider, or understand me on my terms.

    That's unfortunate, because it represents the forfeiture of a chance to learn, to understand, and more importantly, to really let ideas and arguments compete, on a fair and open basis. When ideas *can* compete, fairly, and without systemic prejudice, but rather on the merits, then *everybody* involved can at least benefit from learning and understanding, even if few or noone changes sides or positions.

    So, I grant the atheist a platform where I try to consider his argument according to his paradigm, assessing the whole of his presentation as a framework, starting with his presuppositions and building from that. I do that because I would like the atheist (or the Buddhist, or the YEC) to do the same for me, to consider my argument -- presuppositions and all -- as a whole, judged on its own merits instead of a framework that must succeed against *his* presuppositions.

    I offer this "courtroom" model, and try to keep things cordial and generous, just because I think the Golden Rule tells me I ought to do this, if I expect it in return.

    When I encounter an atheist who, like Calvindude, insists that the debate must proceed according to *his* paradigm, I see that as hostile, but hostility based on weakness and fear. An atheist that doesn't have the guts or intellectual strength to assess the paradigm I advance, according to my presuppositions and terms, is someone I have found to be a "hiding" atheist. He talks tough, and sees himself as some kind of secular Elijah, selected by fate to slay the worshippers of *all* gods, Baal, Yahweh, and everyone else.

    But he needs to rig the game to do it. He needs to be judge and jury to make sure his advocacy works. He is Staling winning in a landslide.

    So, too, I see you, Steve, and to a more extreme extent Calvindude, "hiding" Christians. The "meta-message" that you project is that Christianity can only stand in the courtroom of ideas if it controls judge and jury. If the readers and other participants are free to judge for themselves whether secular morality has any intrinsic worth, you and Calvindude appear to think you are doomed.

    This is really tragic, projecting Christianity as a decrepit weakling, a "truth" that can only stand if all competitors are bound and gagged. When Calvindude insists that there *cannot* be an morality without a transcendent God, he is projecting Jesus Christ as a weakling; Jesus' words and message only prevail in a kangaroo court, rigged in His favor.

    For my part, I'm happy to advance the atheist, Buddhist, or whoever all the close calls. My opponent can have the benefit of the doubt. My faith, the Jesus and Gospel that I understand to be true doesn't need to lower itself to the shenanigans that Calvindude and you make a routine practice of here.

    As for your predictions, I don't know the future. I have faith in Jesus, not based on self-serving apologetice (thank goodness!) but based on a supernatural, personal knowledge of my savior, and my desparate need of a savior. If it were up to blogs and "apologists" like you guys, I think I'd have had to bail out of Christianity altogether long ago.

    But you're not "normative" to me. Your role as judge and jury only extend as far as your own skulls, despite your beliefs to the contrary; people will judge your arguments for themselves, and no amount of "Calvinduding" on your part is gonna change that.

    We'd all learn a lot more, have much more interesting and edifying conversations, and affirm a number of positive and charitable things about each other if we could follow the Golden Rule around here, and treat others in the way we'd like to be treated.

    -Touchstone

    ReplyDelete
  6. Touchstone,

    Some observations....
    1. If this was a kangeroo court then why on earth does Steve et al have an open combox?

    2. I was always under the impression that the whole idea of a courtroom was for one position to be proved superior to another. Was I wrong all this time?

    3. You ascribe too much power to Steve. He really has no control over the 'jury' deciding between the two arguments.

    4. Do you really believe this 'neutrality' is the way atheists approach the debate? Right.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Daniel said:

    Notice how all Steve does is move the goalposts from his original assertion that "So, yes, Mr. Shermer, left to our own devices it’s only a matter of time before rape, robbery, and murder would become public policy. Indeed, that prospect has played out to one degree or another whenever an unchristian regime has been in power for long."

    Now he's saying, "Nevermind that I said X (rape, murder, robbery will play out when 'left to our own devices', or when an unchristian regime rules) well, uh, here's the thing, Y, and Z..."

    ********************************

    This is an accusation minus an argument. I've given a number of specific examples to support my original claim.

    Danny offers nothing specific by way of rebuttal.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Daniel said:
    ---
    CalvinDude acted like an arse towards T-stone from the get-go, insulting his faith and accusing him of being an unbeliever.
    ---

    A) Prove that I have "insulted" his faith.

    B) Prove that I have "acted like an arse" in any sense. Furthermore, prove that it has been "from the get-go." It's easy for you to make these claims, but I daresay you can't back them up.

    C) As to accusing him of being an unbeliever, I still do. He's given me no reason to change my mind on that issue. As far as I can tell, Touchstone is gonna get up to heaven and say, "Lord, Lord, didn't I do all this awesome equivocating and fuzzy feel-good sessions with atheism in your name?" And Jesus will say, "Depart from me, I never knew you."

    ReplyDelete
  9. Heavenly Father,

    I know that its all predetermined anyway, but I'd ask that you grant more "so-called" Christians the knowledge of Calvinism, so they too can join the ranks of "true Christian."

    In Your Name,

    Jimbo

    ReplyDelete
  10. Touchstone (yet again demonstrating an inability to read) said:
    ---
    I think Calvindude has shown that he finds his presuppositions superior simply because they are his; that's enough proof for him, apparently.
    ---

    *sigh*

    Sure thing, Touchstone. Obviously this little thing called "reality" cannot penetrate into your mind. These little things called "facts" have no bearing on anything you write. Nothing I've written already on any subject has any relevance to anything you're writing now...

    So, to answer you in a like manner: Yes, chili is made with real squirrels. It's only the shoes that are fake.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hi WLOTTER,

    You said:
    Some observations....
    1. If this was a kangeroo court then why on earth does Steve et al have an open combox?


    I suspect that it serves as more "kangaroo fodder" for them. The criticisms just prove that they're right, because they're such stupid criticisms -- they're no even internally consistent according to Steve's (external) axioms, after all!

    And the affirming comments prove he's right, because, well, Steve's got it figured out anyway, but it's nice to have a pat on the back now and then.

    That said, I don't for a minute deny or underestimate the openness it takes to keep and open combox. Go try to say your piece -- politely, but directly -- at Slice of Laodicea sometime. One can truly appreciate Triablogue from that angle.

    Kudos to the T-Bloggers for open comboxes, whatever the reason!

    You said:

    2. I was always under the impression that the whole idea of a courtroom was for one position to be proved superior to another. Was I wrong all this time?

    No, that's what I was going for. But here, the jury is invisible, unless they choose to identify themselves in a combox (and even then, it's problematic to say who's who). So the advocates bring their cases, and everybody reading just makes their own decision. The "verdict" is never formally collected in a situation like this, as it usually is in a court case.

    The important parts of my analogy are:

    a) impartiality as a starting point
    b) the advocates are not the jury -- the jury are not the advocates.
    c) Cordial customs and rules promote good information exchange

    Obviously, this is not a court of law. There are many significant differences between the two.

    You said:

    3. You ascribe too much power to Steve. He really has no control over the 'jury' deciding between the two arguments.


    I get that -- that's a principal part of my argument here. I'm trying to get this across to Steve and Calvindude (and maybe others) as a means of improving the quality of the dialog. Suggesting, for example, that "moral frameworks" are only "moral frameworks" according to your own arbitrary definition is simply toxic to the conversation. It poisons the well.

    I'm quite sure the vast majority of those here understand this. It's sort of a "Memo to Steve", with a cc: to Calvindude.

    You said:

    4. Do you really believe this 'neutrality' is the way atheists approach the debate? Right.


    Not entirely, or even mostly, in my experience. That's what I was pointing out in my example. I debate many atheists who use the "Calvindude method". The well gets poisoned, and the conversation quickly degrades into an ugly waste of time. It speaks of fundamental weakness on their part, of extreme vanity. It's quite unpleasant to deal with.

    But it is not an atheist/Christian thing. The Calvindude method gets adopted all around. But I've met a good many atheists who are generous, thoughtful, and kind. That doesn't make them RIGHT, but it does make them generous, thoughtful and kind.

    And that's a good thing.

    So, not only is debating an atheist who eschews the Calvindude method pleasant to deal with, it's instructive for me. When he listens to my arguments, and offers considered critiques, he's offering me a chance to improve, clarify and sharpen my argument as an apologist.

    He exposes the weakness in my argument, and I am the better for listening to his critique, and improving my advocacy in areas where I am weak.

    With Steve, and Calvindude, the overarching theme is that there *are* no good critiques from the other side, and there are no internal weaknesses that need to be addressed. This kind of mistaken stance just keeps the weakness weak, and it gets weaker.


    If you believe you are judge and jury, you don't really need to hone or even worry about the quality of your arguments.


    This, I believe is an important idea in understanding Steve, Calvindude, and to some extent Paul -- the others I don't get that sense from (but am not very familiar with much of their writings). Paul has tendencies that way, from what I've read, but often resists the urge, which I appreciate.

    -Touchstone

    ReplyDelete
  12. Wow, I get my very own method...

    Of course, Touchstone arbitrarily gets to define what a "moral framework" is while denying the right of anyone to do so. Does he see this inconsistency? Of course not.

    Touchstone doesn't read what I write in the first place though. He merely assumes things. I must mean something because he magically read it into a sentence not even related to whatever he makes up. Then, when I point it out, he changes the subject and pretends we were talking about that the whole time.

    No wonder he likes atheists. He thinks like one. I've yet to see him differentiate a single position he holds from anything an atheist holds.

    But Touchstone can feel nice and comfy in his captain's chair because he's been "nice" to everyone (except Christians--he can be mean to them cuz they actually think they're right and all). And he can ride that captain's chair all the way to the bottom of the ocean as his ship continues to sink.

    Of course, if Touchstone was a real Christian he'd realize that atheists don't need to be coddled. They need to change. And to do that, they have to see their current state is wrong. This is something they don't like being pointed out to them though.

    And Touchstone doesn't want to offend them, so he'll just go along with them as if they're right. People who don't see a need for salvation won't ever be saved, and Touchstone will be the one helping to push them into hell.

    ReplyDelete
  13. TOUCHSTONE SAID:
    “Steve, when you engage in a debate with an atheist, you are both coming to the table with a different set of pre-suppositions. So the lowest level question is this: whose presuppositions take precedence?”

    No one answer. Is this a personal question or a methodological question?

    At a personal level, my presuppositions take precedence for me. Everyone who comes to the table believes in his own presuppositions and operates accordingly.

    But at a tactical or methodological level, I may assume the viewpoint of the opposing side for the sake of argument.

    And I also reserve the right to challenge the presuppositions of the opposing side.

    “I think Calvindude has shown that he finds his presuppositions superior simply because they are his; that's enough proof for him, apparently.”

    I’ve read enough of Calvindude to know that he doesn’t merely assert his presuppositions, but argues for them.

    “Do your presuppositions take precedence over John Loftus' in any debate/discussion you might have? If so, why?”

    I’ve already answered that question in the abstract (see above). And there’s no want of concrete examples of how I interact with his positions in actual practice.

    “The model I proceed from is something like a courtroom.”

    You’re substituting an allegory for an argument. And it’s a pretty vacuous allegory since it all depends on who stands for what.

    “The initial starting point is one of neutrality.”

    Neutrality for whom? No one is neutral.

    Are you suggesting that a Christian should put his faith in a blind trust whenever he gets into a conversation with an unbeliever?

    “But you and Calvindude strike me as plaintiffs arguing for prejudice in th court. The defendant *must* be guilty, because it *cannot* be otherwise!”

    I’m not interested in toying your allegory. But even on its own grounds, the prosecutor or DA is not a neutral party. He operates with the presumption of guilt.

    “The atheist isn't bested by the merits of your argument, but rather, he's down by law, according to you. You and Calvindude are taking the position of lawyer, judge and jury, for yourselves. No one is surprised at the outcome of a kangaroo court.”

    Instead of interacting with what I actually said, as well as the supporting arguments I referred you to (Anderson, Welty, Pruss), you translate my position into your cutesy little allegory, trying to turn this into a debate over your allegorical decoy.

    You’re welcome to your allegory. And I’m welcome to my argument.

    “Yes, that's the question, but that's the question for the jury, not for me or you, the lawyer to pronounce judgment on. We *advocate*, others judge our arguments.”

    This is an artificial division of labor, contingent on your courtroom allegory, as if this were a debate over the correct interpretation of the allegory.

    “So, I grant the atheist a platform where I try to consider his argument according to his paradigm, assessing the whole of his presentation as a framework, starting with his presuppositions and building from that.”

    This is standard operating procedure in Van Tilian apologetics.

    “When I encounter an atheist who, like Calvindude, insists that the debate must proceed according to *his* paradigm, I see that as hostile, but hostility based on weakness and fear.”

    Setting aside the fact that this is a total distortion of Calvindude’s methodology, notice that Touchstone is doing the very thing he finds fault with in others. He’s playing the role of judge and jury.

    Instead of allowing the lurkers at T-blog to render their own verdict based on Calvindude’s unannotated arguments, he’s taking it upon himself to convict Calvindude of various offenses.

    “When Calvindude insists that there *cannot* be an morality without a transcendent God, he is projecting Jesus Christ as a weakling.”

    This is a pretty damning admission with respect to Touchstone’s own theology and Christology.

    Jesus, as God Incarnate, is a “weakling” unless he concedes the possibility of moral norms even if he, or his Father, or the Spirit of God, didn’t exist.

    So, according to Touchstone, God is a “weakling” if God says that he is the only source and standard of moral absolutes. For God not to be a weakling, in Touchstone’s lexicon, he would have to concede that his existence or nonexistence is indifferent to moral norms.

    Whether the universe is godless or divinely designed is irrelevant to the possibility of moral norms. This coming from a man who assures us that he’s a conservative Evangelical.

    “For my part, I'm happy to advance the atheist, Buddhist, or whoever all the close calls.”

    Whether or not morality is ultimately dependent on God is, for Touchstone, a “close call.”

    “My opponent can have the benefit of the doubt.”

    If you think the Christian faith is dubious, then…yes…we can give the atheist the benefit of the doubt.

    “My faith, the Jesus and Gospel that I understand to be true doesn't need to lower itself to the shenanigans that Calvindude and you make a routine practice of here.”

    Yes, the shenanigans of insisting that God is the author of the moral law, without whose existence there would be no foundation for morality.

    Or the shenanigans of insisting that God is the exemplar of reason, without which human rationality would be fatally compromised.

    Touchstone’s God is an optional God. Not the engine, but a nice accessory, like Mag wheels or leather seats.

    “But you're not ‘normative’ to me.”

    I never said I was normative. That’s your imputation. I explained the distinction between descriptive and normative, but you’re beyond correction.

    “Your role as judge and jury only extend as far as your own skulls, despite your beliefs to the contrary; people will judge your arguments for themselves, and no amount of "Calvinduding" on your part is gonna change that.”

    For someone who attacks others for—in his opinion—assuming the role of judge and jury, no one is more judgmental than Touchstone, and quicker to mete out a sentence to his own liking.

    “Suggesting, for example, that "moral frameworks" are only "moral frameworks" according to your own arbitrary definition is simply toxic to the conversation. It poisons the well.”

    If an Aztec priest had Touchstone strapped to the altar, I can just hear him say to the priest, as the dagger hangs over his palpitating chest, “Well, you have your moral framework and I have mine. It’s a close call, and it’s not for little ol’ me to play the role of judge and jury. I’m just a humble advocate. I’m happy to give you the benefit of the doubt.”

    Continuing:

    “I'm quite sure the vast majority of those here understand this. It's sort of a "Memo to Steve", with a cc: to Calvindude.”

    Notice how he’s now speaking on behalf of all the lurkers. Kinda like assuming the role of judge and jury, don’t you think?

    “Not entirely, or even mostly, in my experience. That's what I was pointing out in my example. I debate many atheists who use the "Calvindude method". The well gets poisoned, and the conversation quickly degrades into an ugly waste of time.”

    No, what causes the conversation to rapidly deteriorate are disputants like Touchstone who hop from one burning boat to another.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Touchstone should feel lucky this isn't Geneva, and Steve isn't Calvin. The "rational" of the tyrant theist always leads to violence against those who dare to question his authority to speak for the one true god.

    Thank goodness these 21st century bigoted dolts simply are now limited to spending there days blogging about their inane prattle, instead of torturing and exiling heretics.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Steve should feel lucky this isn't the USSR, and anonymous isn't Stalin. The "rational" of the tyrant atheist always leads to violence against those who dare to question his authority to speak in the name of no-god.

    ReplyDelete
  16. ha ha ha ha

    that's classic calvindude...

    "We suck and so do you!"

    ReplyDelete
  17. Touchstone said:
    ---
    The model I proceed from is something like a courtroom.
    ---

    To which Steve responded:
    ---
    You’re substituting an allegory for an argument. And it’s a pretty vacuous allegory since it all depends on who stands for what.
    ---

    Furthermore, Touchstone doesn't provide any metaphysical or epistemological grounding for this method of inquery. He merely asserts that this is how things ought to be done, and then complains about my "asserting" things that I've actually provided reasons for....

    ReplyDelete
  18. anonymous said:
    ---
    ha ha ha ha

    that's classic calvindude...

    "We suck and so do you!"
    ---

    No, it demonstrated the incoherency of your original claim. If your claim is valid, my secondary claim is valid. If you disagree with that claim, you must validate why your original claim is valid.

    I, on the other hand, don't accept the validity of either claim. So: Ha ha ha, joke's on you.

    ReplyDelete
  19. TURN OR BURN HERETIC SCUM!!!!

    - Calvin

    ReplyDelete
  20. CD:

    On this comment, when evolution came up, I found perhaps the earliest instance of snarkiness -- "Scientists are just as much religious toward their method as any theist is toward his God. To pretend otherwise is simply to display philosophical ignorance."

    This was in response to Touchstone's assertion that your philosophy of science was too restrictive, and thus wrong. I can keep digging through the evolution threads, but those who have been following the more recent threads will see that your general assery outmatches anything Tstone has done by orders of magnitude.

    You are not so rude typically, and it seems you are never so rude on your own blog. I suppose Hays and Manata are rubbing off on you.

    Steve:

    On the "Morality and Criminality" thread, your entire post was dedicated to moving the goalposts from the quote of yours, which Tstone challenged with Japan (but could just as easily be challenged with Denmark or Germany or...), to an issue of morality. You claimed that rape, murder, etc., would become "public policy" in "a matter of time" and that history attested to this whenever non-Christian regimes ruled.

    He refuted this overtly silly generalization. You never, ever, once addressed that issue. If you did, please point me to a specific quote. Instead, you said things like, "To judge the public morality of a nation by the crime rate is fallacious at several levels".

    You wanted to change the issue from Japan's murder, rape, etc., to Japan's morality, because you were shown wrong. The idea that "common grace" is an answer to this is also silly -- you didn't say, "rape and etc., will take over in a non-Christian regime, except when restrained by common grace..."

    And if you did, it would render the comment impotent: any correlation between non-Christian regimes and rape, murder, etc., becoming "public policy" is lost in your magic, catch-all "well, in that case, it must've been common grace".

    Will you admit, or not, that your original statement was overzealous and ultimately false?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Love the discussion, guys! Keep it up...

    ReplyDelete
  22. Daniel said:


    Steve:

    On the "Morality and Criminality" thread, your entire post was dedicated to moving the goalposts from the quote of yours, which Tstone challenged with Japan (but could just as easily be challenged with Denmark or Germany or...), to an issue of morality. You claimed that rape, murder, etc., would become "public policy" in "a matter of time" and that history attested to this whenever non-Christian regimes ruled.

    He refuted this overtly silly generalization. You never, ever, once addressed that issue. If you did, please point me to a specific quote. Instead, you said things like, "To judge the public morality of a nation by the crime rate is fallacious at several levels".

    You wanted to change the issue from Japan's murder, rape, etc., to Japan's morality, because you were shown wrong. The idea that "common grace" is an answer to this is also silly -- you didn't say, "rape and etc., will take over in a non-Christian regime, except when restrained by common grace..."

    And if you did, it would render the comment impotent: any correlation between non-Christian regimes and rape, murder, etc., becoming "public policy" is lost in your magic, catch-all "well, in that case, it must've been common grace".

    Will you admit, or not, that your original statement was overzealous and ultimately false?

    **************************************

    You need to pay attention to who said what when. I never equated morality with criminality in the first place, so I'm not the one who's moving the goal post since that is not where I put the goal post.

    Rather, it was critical commenters who attempted to undercut my claim by equating morality with criminality, then cite crime stats from Japan, Denmark, Sweden, &c.

    That is not how I framed the issue. Rather, that is how they tried to recast the issue. *They* attempted to move the goal post.

    I didn't introduce common grace into the discussion. I believe that Paul Manata did, and he did so in *response* to critical commenters.

    BTW, there's nothing inconsistent in Manata's appeal to common grace.

    I didn't bring up Japan, Touchstone did.

    I responded to Touchstone. And my response was precisely calibrated to the terms of my original post.

    I specifically addressed Touchstone's example with specific examples from imperial and modern Japan.

    He did not refute my generalization. In fact, he never responded to the particulars of my reply.

    You are too blinded by your hostility towards me, CD, and other Christians to see straight at this point.

    Go back, read my original post, read the qualifications built into my original post, and observe that everything I've said by way of reply is implicit in my original post.

    It's an 8-point argument. Neither you nor Touchstone have ever interacted with all 8 points, but they go together.

    And I applied my original, 8-point argument in answer Touchstone and others.

    Do you have the critical detachment and mental concentration to pay attention this time? Or will you continue to fall back on your fact-free generalities?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Steve,

    In your 8-point argument, my thinking was: even if I accept these 8 points and the conclusion, this doesn't match with the evidence -- Japan being an contrary example that came to mind.

    I wasn't particularly interested in taking on the 8 points. Some of them I agreed with, some I didn't. A lot of them were irrelevant.

    What was, I think, clearly an erroneous assertion was your summary for that post. It was this:

    So, yes, Mr. Shermer, left to our own devices it’s only a matter of time before rape, robbery, and murder would become public policy. Indeed, that prospect has played out to one degree or another whenever an unchristian regime has been in power for long.

    Later on, you've tried to say you meant *morality* or some form of righteousness. But here, you stated it plainly: rape, robbery and murder will become public policy before long without Christian morals.

    I don't even need to *read* the 8 points to understand this claim. It's quite clear. Rape robbery and murder are inevitable features of public policy in societies that aren't based on Christian mores.

    So, reading this claim, Japan, a society I know a little bit about, comes to mind. I'm not thinking about pornography, or the Japanese mafia, or any of the other distractive things you'd like to throw in the way. I'm thinking about what you said: rape, murder and robbery would be become public policy. I think that Japan soundly disproves your claim.

    Others are free to decide for themselves. Does Japan, a non-Christian society, make rape, robbery and murder public policy? If not, then how can Steve's claim be true?

    It can't, in my view. This is just another case of thoughtless argument. A bit of hyperbole and flourish without foundation.

    We can talk about all, none or some of the 8 points, but at the end of the day, your claim stands as expressed with regard to the inevitability of murder, rape and robbery as "public policy" in societies not based on Christian morals. If you've amended that assertion, I missed it.

    -Touchstone

    ReplyDelete
  24. Touchstone isn't interacting with Steve's original post. He's deliberately caricaturing it for his own devious ends. Shame on you Touchstone.

    Also, Touchstone I'd like you to read this pdf of what is now the second most popular sermon on sermonaudio.com. The preacher says that most people in the building are going to hell for their lukewarm cultural Christianity:
    http://www.sermonaudio.com/mediapdf/52906154239.pdf
    You can see the video of him doing it here:
    http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?currSection=sermonsspeaker&sermonID=52906154239
    Enter through the narrow gate for the gate is wide and the way is broad
    that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the
    gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who
    find it.

    You sound like you're on that broad way, Touchstone. To walk in a way that makes atheists view you as 'rational' is a bad sign.

    Woe unto you , when all men shall speak well of you! for in the same manner did their fathers to the false prophets.

    While he was thus defending himself Festus burst out, "You are raving, Paul! All your learning has driven you mad!"

    God bless,
    Anonymous

    ReplyDelete
  25. Touchstone said...

    So, reading this claim, Japan, a society I know a little bit about, comes to mind. I'm not thinking about pornography, or the Japanese mafia, or any of the other distractive things you'd like to throw in the way. I'm thinking about what you said: rape, murder and robbery would be become public policy. I think that Japan soundly disproves your claim.

    Others are free to decide for themselves. Does Japan, a non-Christian society, make rape, robbery and murder public policy?

    **************************

    It's just another illustration of your moral blindness that you regard abortion, the child sex industry, "comfort women," the Japanese mafia, and the Shogunate as so just many "distractions" that I throw in the way rather than graphic and concrete examples of rape, robbery, and murder. Are you truly that ethically challenged?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Steve,

    It's just another illustration of your moral blindness that you regard abortion, the child sex industry, "comfort women," the Japanese mafia, and the Shogunate as so just many "distractions" that I throw in the way rather than graphic and concrete examples of rape, robbery, and murder. Are you truly that ethically challenged?

    It's the height of irony for you to chastise me of inattentiveness then overtly display it here. Moving the goalposts, AGAIN, rather than dealing with one simple quotation which I brought up and you still haven't given a straight and direct "yes" or "no" to:

    Do you stand by that quote or not? Do all non-Christian nations, in "a matter of time", introduce "public policy(ies)" of rape, murder and robbery? Does history back up this claim?

    I am not interested in long convoluted responses.

    Tstone's reply to your response to my own was on point.

    That's all I care about discussing. Call me ADHD, whatever.

    I don't care what you think of morality in general, I don't care what you think of the Japanese mafia or bukkake movies. I just want to know whether you are willing to admit your rhetoric got a little inflamed there, and that you made a hasty generalization. Is it pride that prevents you from giving one word replies?

    Anon,

    To walk in a way that makes atheists view you as 'rational' is a bad sign.

    Right, because we know the Bible says that Christianity is foolishness to the Greeks.

    24At this point Festus interrupted Paul's defense. "You are out of your mind, Paul!" he shouted. "Your great learning is driving you insane."

    25"I am not insane, most excellent Festus," Paul replied. "What I am saying is true and reasonable. 26The king is familiar with these things, and I can speak freely to him. I am convinced that none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner. 27King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know you do."

    28Then Agrippa said to Paul, "Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?"


    You're doing your part to keep Christianity Biblical. Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  27. Anonymous,

    I provided the direct quotes from Steve's post that I was objecting to. How much more direct or specific do you think I might be in identifying my point of interaction.

    The phenomenon of rape by invading armies isn't at all relevant here -- unless you think that such a thing is 'public policy' for the folks back home. Steve is saying that non-Christian societies will inevitably countenance murder, robbery, and rape as a matter of public policy.

    Pointing at rape as a brutality of conquering armies doesn't help Steve at all with the claim he's given that I'm objecting to.

    And I don't at all think Steve is "mad", but instead "angry", and given to false and exaggerating claims. Does that remind you of the Apostle Paul?


    -Touchstone

    ReplyDelete
  28. S. Daniel Morgan said:

    Do you stand by that quote or not? Do all non-Christian nations, in "a matter of time", introduce "public policy(ies)" of rape, murder and robbery? Does history back up this claim?

    ***************************

    Yes, I stand by my original claim, and I've backed it up by specific examples in response to alleged conterexamples that various critics have attempted to introduce.

    You have done absolutely nothing to counter my original, 8-point argument.

    And, no, you don't get to reduce an 8-point argument to a 1-point straw man argument.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Touchstone said...

    "The phenomenon of rape by invading armies isn't at all relevant here -- unless you think that such a thing is 'public policy' for the folks back home."

    That wasn't the only example I cited, but, yes, it's directly relevant. Imperial Japan was a military dictatorship and warrior culture. So, yes, this is official policy. In a stratocracy, what an army does comes from the top down.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Steve,

    You said:
    It's just another illustration of your moral blindness that you regard abortion, the child sex industry, "comfort women," the Japanese mafia, and the Shogunate as so just many "distractions" that I throw in the way rather than graphic and concrete examples of rape, robbery, and murder. Are you truly that ethically challenged?

    I'm quite eager to call abortion murder, there and everywhere. So yes, that definitely counts as state allowed murder there, as here, and everywhere else it's allowed. But even then, a Jewish friend of mine who is pro-choice is regularly reminding me that according to the Torah, causing a miscarriage carries a monetary penalty, indicating that it is *not* murder -- at least in the capital sense. I don't see any functional difference, but my Jewish Rabbi friends apparently do.

    In any case, I grant that abortion is murder, but maintain on the more conventional meaning of the term -- killing without just cause, Japan has some of the lowest murder rates in the world. Even if you include abortions into the numbers for all the societies, I believe you will find Japan among the most "life-preserving" overall.

    Child sex industry. This is something you didn't mention in your claim, Steve. If you want to say that rape occurs, that's fine. But I think if you check out the laws that govern this, *any* kind of sexual contact as the result of coercion is illegal. I'm convinced that pornography *is* a large morally problem in Japanese society. If your claim was that non-Christian societies inevitably descend into pornography, I would not have offered Japan as a counter-example, because it's not.

    But that wasn't your claim. Pornogrpahy was not your claim, and *is* a distraction here. If you want to equate pornography with rape, I will suggest you are demeaning the experience of anyone who has truly been raped. Pornography is abusive in its own way, but it is not rape.

    Japanese mafia. Pure distraction, Steve. What are the numbers here, if not. How many thousands or millions are murdered in Japan that escape the notice of law enforcement and government reporting agencies? Do your Japanese friends suggest that Japan actually *does* have high murder rates. Mine don't. Their anecdotal testimony agrees with the official numbers.

    Shogunate. Another distraction. The Shoguns aren't around anymore. The last Shogun ruled in the 19th century if I recall (Tokugawa?). Even as a distraction I don't know that it helps your case. Were murder, rape, and robbery countenanced as public policy before the meiji era? I'm no expert, but I'd be suprised to hear that. Whatever the disposition on that, it doesn't matter -- I've been pointing at modern Japan, and believe I used that term: "modern Japan".

    So, yeah, I think that three of the four are clearly distractions from your stated claims. Abortion is definitely a black mark on the record of Japan. Even including abortion in the murder numbers, I think you will find that modern Japan is one of the leaders in the world in discouraging murder. It certainly is in terms of murder of those who've made it to birth.

    On the whole, then, yes, I say you are offering distractions, rather than confronting the counter-example that Japan represents to your stated claims. I won't suggest that Japan is perfect, or better, or even good overall. Rather, I'm suggesting that it provides a compelling counterexample to the claims as you stated them. If you want to revise your claims, then I suspect that Japan -- or any country -- may not be a good counter-example.

    -Touchstone

    ReplyDelete
  31. Okay great! It seems you guys come full circle now back to a discussion of whether atheism is a recipe for moral decline. I find this topic interesting. I also, find the allegation that atheism can’t coherently account for a moral system (universal or otherwise), but I consider that a topic for another thread, so my preference would be that you guys stay on task. I’d also prefer that you all (not naming names) avoid the vitriol; it’s unbecoming.

    If you guys *do* decide to stay focused on the original controversial claim, maybe you all could work further on clarifying terms like criminal versus moral (and how the distinction is relevant to the arguments being made) and perhaps attempt to find some agreed upon measure of a society’s/government’s moral debasement/virtue.

    By the way, I find the historical and contemporary examples of good/bad societies fascinating. More of these real world examples would help, I think.

    Andrew

    ReplyDelete
  32. We can talk about all, none or some of the 8 points,..."

    I personally think this dialogue would be manifestly more satisfying if Touchstone would actually interact with the specifics of Steve's arguments (both the original 8 points and the extensive replies offered in the comments of this thread) rather than merely focus on one perceived weakness (i.e., his counter example of modern day Japan) to be exploited for polemical purposes.

    And as a clarification: I don't believe that Steve's statement concerning the inevitable codification of rape, murder, and thievery can, in fact, be exploited by citing modern day Japan due to our ignorance of the future condition of this society.

    I should think that this should be rather self-evident.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Der Feuerspracher,

    For my part, I do think that the Judaeo-Christian moral framework is superior to an atheistic one. It places very high importance on the individual, and on the preciousness of life. If man -- each individual -- is created in the image of God, then the destruction of human life is a much more serious offense than simply the taking of another's life.

    The Judaeo-Christian tradition provides high standards for liberty, dignity and the value of human life. These is a superior foundation for a society's laws and culture. Furthermore, the idea that there are no truly private affairs, and that God sees all, and that all men will ultimately have to answer for their every action provides a rationale for the culture that grants liberty, but relies on this conscience for moral behavior.

    In a Christian culture, a man can "get away with" any number of things with respect to the law, or even the cultural mores. But God sees all, and he cannot hope to ultimately beat the system; he must answer for his actions in the end.

    This ultimate accounting is not available in the atheist framework -- there is no final judgment or punishment for moral transgressions. As such, it has less "leverage" over man in appealing to his conscience. The atheist morality *can* and does appeal to man's conscience, but not with the force of ultimate sanction by a God who controls their eternal fate.

    So, Steve's gut reflex -- that atheist moral frameworks ultimately don't perform well compared to the Judaeo-Christian framework, based on what Christians value morally -- is one I share and endorse. It's the expression of this idea with claims and arguments that either manifestly false, or at best extremely weak that gets me objecting.

    It's not the case that man cannot and has not devised moral frameworks that manage to discourage and control the problems he identified: murder, rape, robbery, (and mayhem). Man *is* capable of developing and deploying social and moral frameworks that are not based on Christianity that *do* address these problems. And in some cases, address them effectively, or as effectively as is to be known among the available societies.

    That's an argument that negates the power of the good idea behind it. It makes the whole thing look false and uninformed by association. So I support and endorse the idea that based on what Christians value morally, the Judaeo-Christian tradition is by far superior to all available atheistic ones. But we don't need make false or unsupportable claims in the process.

    -Touchstone

    ReplyDelete
  34. It appears you are missing the thrust of Steve's central argument.

    He can certainly correct me if I have misread him, but his point seems to be not that secular societies have, in fact, established norms of moral conduct, but rather that they cannot give a satisfactory account or [perhaps better] justification for them.

    In other words, do their metaphysical & epistemological views allow them to consistently underwrite a cogent system of moral norms?

    It certainly seems to me, at least, that every attempt to construct a [normative rather than descriptive] system of non-theistic ethics must first begin with an arbitrary & contrived foundation.

    Such an artificial foundation is unable to sustain universally valid [and hence philosophically viable] ethical parenesis.

    ReplyDelete
  35. as stated above:

    "must first begin with an arbitrary & contrived foundation."

    Why don't Christians realize they are DOING THE EXACT SAME THING!!!

    The Bible. Written by men.
    God. In His numerous conceptual views, created by men.
    Theology. Created by men.

    Just saying "we have an objective standard!" is meaningless, because the standard you are pointing to is man-made, and anything but objective.

    sheesh.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Der Fuersprecher:

    First, apologies for misspelling your name in my previous reply.

    You said:
    It appears you are missing the thrust of Steve's central argument.

    I'll address your points below, but I want to point out that my objection to Steve's post on atheist morality is *not* primarily with his thrust. As I said above, I think that I agree with the basic gist of Steve's thinking (minus the attempts to deny atheists their own goals in developing a moral framework without a god).

    What happens is I read the post, and it sames some good things, then it wanders down a rabbit hole for a bit, then it says something iffy, but not objectionable, then something like:

    ... because all birds, fly, after all.

    or left to our own devices it’s only a matter of time before rape, robbery, and murder would become public policy.

    That's just not a reasonable thing to assert, given the evidence available, and I think that's a charitable characterization. I realize that Steve now says by "murder" he really meant "abortion", by "rape" he really meant "child pornography" and by robbery he meant "organized crime". Never mind trying to reconcile this with the "public policy part...

    So, basic thrust agreement or no, I'm standing here saying this is a lousy way to make a convincing argument. It's quite satisfying I'm sure for the author, but only the author and like-minded souls. Everyone else looks at that I think and any impact of his "thrust" evaporates right then and there.


    He can certainly correct me if I have misread him, but his point seems to be not that secular societies have, in fact, established norms of moral conduct, but rather that they cannot give a satisfactory account or [perhaps better] justification for them.

    Well, I don't find this to be at all novel or interesting:

    Steve: Moral frameworks developed under different worldviews aren't as satisfying to me as the moral framework that comes with *my* worldview.

    Yeah. Duh.

    As Steve says, he gets to define what is "satisfactory". And while Calvindude and an assortment of fellow travellers are quite happy to see Steve mosey up from the barrister's chair to the judge's chair, the rest of the crowd just heaves a big sigh. Gee, Steve Hays isn't satisfied by secular morality? Who would have guessed?

    That's just abusing bandwidth, in my view.

    What's *interesting*, what gets people engaged, what sharpens the advocates iron is to demonstrate *why* that paradigm they advance (in this case: the moral framework) is more compelling and useful than the alternative(s) at hand. In this case, it's the secular morality.

    That's a noble, but tough challenge.

    Instead, Steve, and I guess you are suggesting that atheists can't dance fast enough to convince you. I'd be interested to hear an atheist around here suggest that they think that trying to "give a satisfactory account" (your words) is anything more than sheer folly. In the wake of Steve's vasting posting history (a lot of which I have read, or at least skimmed now), do they suppose Steve is a fair and reasonable person? Would he say "Hmmm, you know Japan *does* have remarkably low murder, rape and robbery rates. I suppose that one could say that even atheists (!) can work toward managing *those* problems..."

    No, you've read his response. Atheists know *exactly* how fair and reasonable Steve is. I'm a Christian, and it's quite clear to me how consistently unfair, unreasonable and self-serving Steve is in his polemics.

    So when you ask for something "satisfactory" to Steve, everyone that has a different view from Steve just rolls their eyes. At least that's my understanding of the situation.

    You said:

    In other words, do their metaphysical & epistemological views allow them to consistently underwrite a cogent system of moral norms?

    Again, once you've got Steve working on subjective terms, deciding what's "cogent", the gig's up. If you don't believe me, ask a critic here. Ask an atheist what kind of trust Steve has earned in judging whether an atheist argument or rationale is "cogent".

    I dare ya! ;-)

    "Cogent" is to Steve whatever helps Steve, according to my now considerable review of many of Steve's posts.

    So I think it's a good question, and good discussions are to be had at that level. But it takes a minimum level of charity and fairness to make it anything more than a wry bit of sarcasm.


    It certainly seems to me, at least, that every attempt to construct a [normative rather than descriptive] system of non-theistic ethics must first begin with an arbitrary & contrived foundation.

    Yes, absolutely. It's "turtles all the way down", any way you slice it. That's nothing to be afraid of, though, or to even slow us down, if we can reason together in good faith.

    But the same problem as confronts the atheist confronts the Christian, and likely in a much more significant way.

    This is a CRUCIAL POINT we Christians must face: we start with arbitrary foundations, too! That doesn't mean it's FALSE. It just means it's arbitrary. Christians say that God exists as a brute fact. He's not captured in a bottle, validated by empirical tests. We walk by faith.

    Starting from a neutral position, my morals are no more "justified" than an atheists. I can argue that they are better on the merits, and I do that, but let's not pretend that theism isn't predicated on subjective belief. It's just insulting to those that read this.

    So yes, the problem you identify for atheists is a significant one. But Christians, and Buddhists, and Hindus and Bahais are all in the same boat. To suggest otherwise is to fall in the trap that Steve and Calvindude languish in: the idea that what *they* believe is normative for everyone else. The same problem you level at the atheist here, he can level at you, and possibly with more force.

    (I say that because at least some forms of secular morality take an empirical approach. As such they appeal to observed consequences and their observed appeal or lack of appeal to the populace. As such, there is a nominal form of "objectivity" at work there. Christians rightly ask: Yes, but is their "good" *good*? To which the secular moralist says: It must be, look at the data! Round and round it goes...)

    You said:

    Such an artificial foundation is unable to sustain universally valid [and hence philosophically viable] ethical parenesis.


    I get the sense you aren't aware of the problems imposed by "universally valid" and "philosophically viable". Nevermind that the Christian foundation is as subjective as the atheist's, if not more (obligatory reminder: subjective does *not* mean false. A subjective belief can be perfectly *true*).

    But a secular moralist would just ask what you mean by "universally valid". In an atheistic model, perhaps one society values property rights above all else. That will be reflected in some particular moral framework. Another society values community and sharing above property rights. Different rules and customs would prevail in that case. Yet another society values life above all else. Yet another configuration of morals for that society.

    In that model, the morals are just the encoding of social values. There's no "universality" to it. It's "right" simply by being the consensus of that society that it is right. Same with what's "wrong".

    As a Christian, that doesn't work for me, as I *do* believe in a universal, transcendent standard for right and wrong: God's law, God's will. But if you don't *presume* that context -- the Christian context -- then there's no reason to presume that a moral framework would have to be universal or transcendent. Atheist might well insist this is *bug* not a feature, the idea of universality, and that a universal, transcendent moral standard is ill-tuned to all cultures and contexts at all times.

    I don't endorse that "worldview". But I do recognize how presumptuous it is to *assume* that a moral framework must have the attribute(s) you require. If there is no god, then I don't think there's any requirement for universality, and the concept of "transcendent" becomes problematic, intractable, on its face.

    That's really just a long way to say that your idea of what's "philosophically viable" here is completely parochial.

    Let's just cut to the chase. Steve said previously, the *hypothetical* consideration that there is no God is just not an option for him. Maybe it is for you, too. But if so, you've closed yourself completely off from reasonable conversation and discussion with atheists; you can't hope to make a decent argument if you can't even contemplate the other side of the coin.

    The Apostle Paul went to Mars Hill and understood the Greeks. He didn't *endorse* or accept their theology, but his brain was big enough, and his heart was big enough to understand it well enough to explain the Gospel to them. He pointed at their idol of the "unknown god", and suggested that he *knew* their unknown god, that he was a God with a name, and an immanent personality.

    That's a good model to proceed from. Don't be afraid to understand the unbelieving argument, as they advance it, not as you'd like to caricature it. Explain the Gospel in terms they can relate to, identify the "unknown God" to them. Paul was able to connect and persuade because he was able to understand and reasonably assess the other guys' paradigm.

    When Paul looked around the Aeropagus, at all the idols, he didn't say:

    That's not universal! That's not philosophically *viable*!!

    He said: Hey, that unknown God, that piece that doesn't fit in your puzzle, I know that piece, and it fits a whole other puzzle. Let me show you...

    He didn't have to argue over "satisfactory". He simply presented a better paradigm than the one the Greeks had in place. Paul is gracious, engaging, and clear. And more important, he is convincing, at least to some of the hostile crowd.

    That's a model that I'm inspired by. I think it's an inspired approach.

    -Touchstone

    ReplyDelete