 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
the_rickster
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 19
| Posted 1/29/2003 5:51 AM (GMT -6) |   |
I am trying to develop an argument against atheism. The main idea is from Miracles by Lewis. I was hoping you guys could tell me where my premises are unclear or logic is faulty. Thanks for any help.
if atheism is true then one of three things must be true
1. Everything is random and without reason.
2. Everything is an effect that has flowed from prior, natural, irrational caues.
3. Everything is a combination of the other two. Some things are random, some things are effects of the natural causes. (I'm not sure this one makes any sense, but when I threw this argument out to some people they said it was possible.)
If everything is random, then our thoughts are also random. We then have no reason to think our thoughts contain truth or correspond to reality.
If everything is an effect that flows from a prior, natural, irrational cause, we again have no reason to think our thoughts contain truth. Our thoughts are merely the product of chemical reactions and natural causes, but may not correspond to reality.
If everything is a combination, the same effect occurs.
Therefore, an atheist can not consistently hold that atheism is true.
I'm having the most part with the effect of natural cause part. I don't think I'm explaining it clearly.
Thanks
the rickster
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/29/2003 7:02 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi there!
I see a problem with this: "Everything is an effect that has flowed from prior, natural, irrational causes."
Where does this come from? This seems like a presumption. I don't see that your argument counters the arguments for atheism relating to cosmology and evolution.
I've heard the argument that organized complexity is the product of conscious design or natural selection. Intelligence is an example of organized complexity. Thus, intelligence is the product of conscious design or natural selection. And of course, the argument goes, that natural selection is most consistent with evolution. And, of course, that evolution does not need a God to be involved.
"All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusion is called a philosopher."
- Ambrose Bierce (1842-1914) | | Back to Top | | |
|
the_rickster
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 19
| Posted 1/29/2003 11:34 AM (GMT -6) | | Thanks Reasonable Doubt-
The goal of the argument isn't to say atheism isn't true. The goal is to say that an atheist who is being consistent can't say atheism is true. It's trying to show that atheism takes away the basis for rationality or saying thoughts apply to reality and are true.
I realize that my second premise isn't clear. That's why I'm looking to you guys for some help.
Also, if intelligence is a product of natural selection, it can't be held that it produces truth. Natural selection doesn't produce what is true, only what works. And since what works isn't necessarily true, the natural selection intellect can only produce what works.
I'd love more critiques or input.
the rickster
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/29/2003 12:49 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey- just wanted to say a couple things. Can we turn the argument around to the following:
if theism is true then one of three things must be true
1. Nothing is random and without reason.
2. Nothing is an effect that has flowed from prior, natural, irrational caues.
3. Nothing is a combination of the other two.
So then it must be that number 1 obtains- nothing is random and without reason. That goes to my free will-determinism post....anyway-
I think an atheist might say, What is meant by truth? So what if natural selection doesn't prove what is true? If one is an atheist, he might say that the only measure of "truth" is the scientific method: testability and falsifiablity.
A lot of atheists aren't bothered by the fact that the scientific method is their measuring stick- everything else is subjective. So the best we can do is employ the scientific method and then live according to that and our subjective (possibly as a society) reason. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 1/29/2003 2:25 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
if atheism is true then one of three things must be true
1. Everything is random and without reason.
2. Everything is an effect that has flowed from prior, natural, irrational caues.
3. Everything is a combination of the other two. Some things are random, some things are effects of the natural causes.
Welcome Rickster,
I have a couple thoughts for you. First, your argument seems to be against NATURALISM, the view that the physical universe is all there is (therefore mind is the product of physical causes and not an ultimate constituent in reality), and not atheism per se. Theoretically, at least, one could be an atheist and hold that mind is a basic constituent of reality along with matter, etc. while denying that there is any transcendent mind (viz. God). In point of fact, however, most atheists are naturalists.
Second, the three options can be better expressed as follows: If naturalism is true, then the ultimate explanation for anything is either
1. Chance
2. Physical Law
3. Some combination of chance & physical law
quote:
If everything is random, then our thoughts are also random. We then have no reason to think our thoughts contain truth or correspond to reality.
If everything is an effect that flows from a prior, natural, irrational cause, we again have no reason to think our thoughts contain truth. Our thoughts are merely the product of chemical reactions and natural causes, but may not correspond to reality.
If everything is a combination, the same effect occurs.
Therefore, an atheist can not consistently hold that atheism is true.
I think this is a pretty decent argument. If the ultimate cause for why we believe what we believe is due to chance or causal processes that have no essential orientation toward truth (or some combination of the two), then there is good reason to doubt the deliverances of our belief forming processes. Alvin Plantinga has developed this line of argument very carefully in the last couple chapters of his book "Warrant and Proper Function". You might want to look at that for more ideas.
One last point. If the argument works, what it shows is not that naturalism is logically contradictory but rather that belief in naturalism is PERFORMATIVELY self-defeating. What I mean is, it does not show that the THESIS of naturalism is incoherent, but rather that one's COMMITMENT to that thesis gives one a defeater that undermines all of one's commitments, including the commitment to naturalism.
Hope that helps.
Alan
Edited by - Alan Rhoda on 01/29/2003 7:27:46 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
the_rickster
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 19
| Posted 1/29/2003 7:05 PM (GMT -6) | |
Thanks a lot for your help Alan.
Could you tell me another position an atheist may hold that would be outside of the three options. I thought about how this may only apply to naturalism, but I couldn't think of a view that would be consistent with atheism that would escape this difficulty. It seems they need a supernatural or rational cause as a basis for rationality. I don't see how either of these could be consistent with atheism.
Also, thanks a lot for the clarification of performatively self-defeating.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 1/30/2003 10:56 AM (GMT -6) | | This is just a sidenote...
Alan, you rock! Your posts are very clear and full of wisdom. Quick point Reasonable doubt says quote:
I think an atheist might say, What is meant by truth? So what if natural selection doesn't prove what is true? If one is an atheist, he might say that the only measure of "truth" is the scientific method: testability and falsifiablity.
I think what the rickster is trying to argue (with Lewis and Plantinga) that the Naturalist has no way to conduct the scientific method - the testability and falsability- because how can the scientists thoughts be true or false? They are merely random electrical charges bumping around in the head.
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. - C.S. Lewis | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/30/2003 12:11 PM (GMT -6) | | Are you saying how can you know anything? Are we victims of the CArtesian demon?
Memory that forms a consistent model of the past and allows future predictions is evidence of its reliability. If you believe that the reliability of memory must be assumed and that there is no evidence for its reliability, do you also believe that there is no evidence for faulty memory? Certainly if memory is ASSUMED reliable, there is nothing that should cause that to be questioned - it's axiomic.
Similarly with inductive reasoning. Do you believe there is no evidence to indicate that some forms of reasoning (random generation of conclusions for example) are not reliable? Inductive reasoning is used because it works (in many domains familiar to us). It's not just some random assumption that is continually made without any evidence supporting its use.
"All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusion is called a philosopher."
- Ambrose Bierce (1842-1914) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 1/30/2003 4:19 PM (GMT -6) | | Appreciate the positive feedback, guys.
Rickster: Could you tell me another position an atheist may hold that would be outside of the three options. I thought about how this may only apply to naturalism, but I couldn't think of a view that would be consistent with atheism that would escape this difficulty. It seems they need a supernatural or rational cause as a basis for rationality. I don't see how either of these could be consistent with atheism
Alan: Atheism is simply the claim that there is no God (understood as a personal, transcendent being who is the ultimate ground for the being of everything else). One can be an atheist and consistently affirm anything that does not contradict the thesis of atheism--though many claims that are consistent with atheism are not very plausible given atheism. For example, an atheist could posit the existence of brute moral facts and thus be an moral objectivist. An atheist could believe in libertarian free will. An atheist could also believe in an afterlife in which our condition there is, in some way, dependent upon the choices we make while we are alive, etc. But it is awfully hard to GROUND morality, etc. without positing a being like God.
In answer to your question, an atheist could, in principle, hold that reasons can be causes and that our cognitive faculties IN FACT function in such a way as to reliably yield true beliefs. So rationality is consistent with atheism, but the atheist does have a problem GROUNDING our confidence in our cognitive abilities. As Stephen Stich ("The Fragmentation of Reason") has argued, there is good reason to think that evolution would not by itself lead to highly reliable cognitive faculties. So how else is the atheist to explain the hypothesized reliability of those faculties? The theist has a ready answer. The atheist, it seems to me, does not.
RD: Are you saying how can you know anything? Are we victims of the Cartesian demon?
Alan: That's not Rick's (or Ross's) point. The argument Rick is trying to develop says that IF naturalism is true, THEN there is no good reason to trust the deliverances of our cognitive faculties.
RD: Memory that forms a consistent model of the past and allows future predictions is evidence of its reliability. ... Similarly with inductive reasoning. Do you believe there is no evidence to indicate that some forms of reasoning (random generation of conclusions for example) are not reliable? Inductive reasoning is used because it works (in many domains familiar to us). It's not just some random assumption that is continually made without any evidence supporting its use.
Alan: Granted, but no one here is arguing that memory, reasoning, etc. are not reliable. The argument against naturalism on the table assumes that our cognitive faculties are reliable as follows:
1. Our cognitive faculties are reliable.
2. If naturalism is true, then our cognitive faculties are not reliable.
3. Therefore, naturalism is not true.
Hope that clarifies,
Alan
| | Back to Top | | |
|
the_rickster
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 19
| Posted 1/30/2003 6:50 PM (GMT -6) | |
Thanks a lot for all your help guys. I have a much better grasp of the argument.
Rick
| | Back to Top | | |
|
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 1/31/2003 5:41 AM (GMT -6) | | This is one of my favorite arguments for God's existence. For another source on this type of argument, J. P. Moreland has a chapter in Scaling the Secular City that formulates this argument very well. (I think its Chapter 3)
Ross
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. - C.S. Lewis | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/31/2003 6:52 AM (GMT -6) | | Alan- what are cognitive faculties then? I thought that it meant memory, reason, etc. That we prove the "true-ness" of our sensory observations through memory and reason and comparison with everyone else;s.
For example, I think everyone agrees what the color red is. But how can we if we can't trust our cognitive faculties, that's what you're saying?
I'd say, b/c we all remember the same color as red, we have observed it through our eyes, we have no reason to mistrust our eyes, if it is in fact that the vast majority of people see the same thing we see. | | Back to Top | | |
|
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 1/31/2003 9:32 AM (GMT -6) | | In response to Reasonable Doubt...
I believe that the point of this argument is that we DO have cognitive facualties that we can trust. The point of the argument is how does a naturalist explain the proper functioning of our brain to produce memories, reason, etc.
Alvin Plantinga says in "Naturalism Defeated" quote:
But if naturalism is true, there is no God, and hence no God (or anyone else) overseeing our development and orchestrating the course of our evolution. And this leads directly to the question whether it is at all likely that our cognitive faculties, given naturalism and given their evolutionary origin, would have developed in such a way as to be reliable, to furnish us with mostly true beliefs. Darwin himself expressed this doubt: "With me," he said,
the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?
A lecture by Plantinga formulating this argument can be listened to at hisdefense.org/audio/ap_audio.html
In a sense this argument is an argument to design. Naturalist says that matter plus time plus chance = consciousness -- reasoning, remembering, etc. The Theist asks, HOW DID IT HAPPEN???
(I've heard from a friend that Richard Swinburne's book The Evolution of the Soul poses this question to the naturalist quite nicely.)
Ross
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. - C.S. Lewis
Edited by - rossfadeinout on 01/31/2003 2:35:11 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/31/2003 9:54 AM (GMT -6) | | I'm sorry if I'm ignorant, but I still don't see the problem.
"the Naturalist has no way to conduct the scientific method - the testability and falsability- because how can the scientists thoughts be true or false?"
"So rationality is consistent with atheism, but the atheist does have a problem GROUNDING our confidence in our cognitive abilities."
But again, there may be the problem of grounding, but of what practical purpose is the grounding? I've heard arguments that even if we are all not real and merely a god's dream, we still can get along practically b/c we use the same measures- granted they may not be "true" but if everyone is agreeing with it, it is a way to function practically.
Are you saying that ontological assumptions are necessary in order to make epistemological claims meaningful? Are you saying that - " if I believe that everything that I think I perceive may not really be there because I could simply be a brain in the vat of some scientist in his/her laboratory, then I still cannot possibly be a solipsist because solipsism, as an ontology, would require that I hold that nothing else other than my own existence is real"? (I'm quoting here but i don't know who )
I am getting more and more confused here....but that's not surprising! | | Back to Top | | |
|
the_rickster
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 19
| Posted 1/31/2003 11:10 AM (GMT -6) | | Reasonable Doubt-
The practical purpose of the grounding is to be able to say what we think is true. We could live with this as long as our thoughts keep us alive. But merely 'survival thoughts' are not adequate to make truth statements such as, "Naturalism is true.","The angles of a triangle equal 180 degrees." To say things like this are true we need to have a grounding for our rationality. I may be butchering what you said, but I promise my intentions are good.
the rickster
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/31/2003 11:23 AM (GMT -6) | | I see what you're saying. So the argument is proving that atheism is false, but not actually that theism is true, correct?
Alan: "But it is awfully hard to GROUND morality, etc. without positing a being like God."
How does the being like God fit into your argument? I mean, why is it that there has to be God to ground morality? Or is it just that there has to be something supernatural?
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds, and the pessimist fears this is true."
- James Branch Cabell | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/31/2003 12:58 PM (GMT -6) | | Rickster- what did you mean by this: "Everything is an effect that has flowed from prior, natural, irrational caues."
When you say "irrational"- do you just mean strictly physical? Or what is meant? thanks
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds, and the pessimist fears this is true."
- James Branch Cabell | | Back to Top | | |
|
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 1/31/2003 4:53 PM (GMT -6) | | This has been a cool topic! But at the risk of sounding stupid I have to ask a question. RD asked
quote:
I see what you're saying. So the argument is proving that atheism is false, but not actually that theism is true, correct?
My observation is this, by proving that atheism is false, doesn't that prove that theism is true?
1.EITHER (a)God exists, or (b) God does not exist-atheism
2. The argument shows that (b)atheism is false
Therefore...3. God exists
Ross
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. - C.S. Lewis | | Back to Top | | |
|
the_rickster
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 19
| Posted 2/1/2003 9:33 PM (GMT -6) | |
RD and Ross-
Actually the argument doesn't prove that atheism is false. It shows that an atheist (maybe only naturalist as Alan has pointed out) who is being consistent can't claim their position to be true. The basic reasoning is any position that takes away the reliability of human rationality cannot be held to be true.
Ross- If it did show atheism is false, that would leave four other basic view open. Theism, Deism, Pantheism, and Panentheism. These are the different views of God available.
"How does the being like God fit into your argument? I mean, why is it that there has to be God to ground morality? Or is it just that there has to be something supernatural?"
Rationality demands a rational basis. When rationality is grounded in the irrational, then its reliability is lost. Since there can't be an actual infinite amount of finite rational causes before now to base our rationality on, there must have been a first, non-finite, rational cause. This doesn't answer your quesiton fully, but just in relation to this argument.
What do I mean by irrational?
Without the ability to reach truth.
Rickster
Edited by - the_rickster on 02/07/2003 02:11:59 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Newcomb
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 116
| Posted 2/6/2003 11:48 AM (GMT -6) | | Wow! Rickster, I like your thinking.
Let me respond to a few things RD has stated:
Quotes are run together from different posts on this subject:
quote:
if theism is true then one of three things must be true
1. Nothing is random and without reason.
2. Nothing is an effect that has flowed from prior, natural, irrational caues.
3. Nothing is a combination of the other two.
(snip)
I think an atheist might say, What is meant by truth? So what if natural selection doesn't prove what is true? If one is an atheist, he might say that the only measure of "truth" is the scientific method: testability and falsifiablity.
A lot of atheists aren't bothered by the fact that the scientific method is their measuring stick- everything else is subjective. So the best we can do is employ the scientific method and then live according to that and our subjective (possibly as a society) reason.
(snip)
Similarly with inductive reasoning. Do you believe there is no evidence to indicate that some forms of reasoning (random generation of conclusions for example) are not reliable? Inductive reasoning is used because it works (in many domains familiar to us). It's not just some random assumption that is continually made without any evidence supporting its use.
First in 1. above, there is evidence that nothing is truly random but must be expressed in some form of a mathematical model. The chaos theory ran head long into this when it sprang up and used fractals showing forms that we see in nature could be produced randomly. The trouble they ran into very rapidly was that there were using Mandelbrot sets which are very precise sets of connected points on a complex plane. There was no randomness at all. The chaos theory rapidly ran into this and changed from trying to show complex organization could result from randomness to merely showing how apparent randomness can be the result of complex mathematical designs. About 1965 some scientists, trying to do something similar started promoting the idea that the movement of gasses in any given area were random, but physicists quickly buried that idea and insisted that the motion, though complex, was far from random. So the case can be made that 1. is true. It is the case that every time an evolutionist has tried to defeat the idea that ordered systems cannot be built on disorder (a philosophic claim) he has been shot down by friendly fire, i.e. other evolutionists.
Let me address both “what is truth?” and the other statements about inductive reasoning in one:
This sounds like you are struggling with naturalism (only nature exists), scientism (only things proves by science are true) and a few other philosophies.
First, naturalism states that only things we can see, taste, touch, and smell are real. While you can see these words, they only express something else that is also real, and those are the thoughts I am thinking as I write this. Since those thoughts are real, as are other traits of personality, naturalism is false since you cannot measure my thoughts qualitatively or quantitatively. Once expressed you can weight the words by rules of logic to see if they are true or false. I can make a truth claim: “I have the svelte body of a 20 year old triathelete.” You can test it to see if it is true. It is, in fact false. I will be 50 soon and am a reasonably good shape at 6’ and 240 pounds, with about 15 pounds too much to be considered svelte. So, we apply the A=A, and so on, to disprove the statement. This is a good use of inductive logic, as modern science uses.
However, inductive logic cannot come to truth, merely a probability that something might be true. This is an important distinction. The probability can be extremely small, but the possibility of falsity is always present except in the rare cases of “perfect induction.” The only way to prove something is necessarily true is with deductive logic which modern science cannot use, thus one problem with scientism.
However, scientism is also self refuting. If it is true, then it is false. How? The statement that “only things proved by experimentation are true” is not something that has been proved by experimentation. In fact, it is a philosophical statement about science that excludes itself from being true, and, of course, if it is not true, it should not be believed.
From your statement above (“Inductive reasoning is used because it works”) it seems you believe in a type of pragmatism, and that, a scientific pragmatism, and I wonder what brought you to these philosophies.
If you are a Christian, then I wonder if you were brought up with a Kantian style of break between the rational (sciences) and irrational (faith) and looking for a reason to believe. Or perhaps you were brought up in a church that followed after Kant or Barth, or other system of thought that does not see the reality of God’s Word. Hmmm. . .
"Neuk'em" | | Back to Top | | |
|
the_rickster
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 19
| Posted 2/8/2003 5:25 AM (GMT -6) | |
Do you guys think it would be safe to say that an atheist must affirm the following statement:
"This rational statement, 'Atheism is true' is based on irrationality"
Based here means something like grounded.
That statement seems self defeating to me, let me know what you think.
rickster
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 2/10/2003 5:26 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Do you guys think it would be safe to say that an atheist must affirm the following statement: "This rational statement, 'Atheism is true' is based on irrationality"
Rick, I don't see why an atheist must affirm that. At any rate, the point needs a lot of fleshing out. What's your definition of rationality? If it's one that an atheist as such need not accept, then the atheist can happily deny that statement. And how exactly is atheism based on irrationality? It is far from obvious that this is true.
I suppose you see this statement as the conclusion of the kind of knock-down argument against atheism that you've been trying to develop. If so, before we can evaluate whether atheists are committed to that statement, we need to see the supporting argument. Additionally, as I stated earlier, I think you will do better to target naturalism instead of atheism. The kind of argument you have been working on is much more effective against naturalism.
I've been thinking a bit more about the argument and it seems to me that Lewis's argument in "Miracles" is rather different from Plantinga's. Plantinga argues that the conjunction of naturalism and evolution gives us reason to doubt the overall reliability of our cognitive faculties. Lewis's argument has nothing to do with reliability, but rather contends that naturalism cannot accommodate the essential role that evidence and logic play in rational thinking. I think Lewis's argument is stronger. Here's my formulation:
(1) If naturalism is true, then everything is either the result of natural laws, chance, or some combination of the two. (assumption)
Therefore,
(2) If naturalism is true then our beliefs are the result of natural laws, chance, or some combination of the two. (from 1)
(3) Rationality requires that beliefs be grounded on a sufficient evidential basis in accordance with the laws of logic. (assumption)
(4) That our beliefs must be grounded in evidence means that they cannot be arbitrary if they are to be rational. (from 3)
(5) Beliefs based on chance are arbitrary. (assumption)
Therefore,
(6) Causation by chance is antithetical to rationality. (from 4 and 5)
(7) Logical laws are not identical to or reducible to natural laws. (assumption)
Therefore,
(8) That our beliefs must be formed in accordance with the laws of logic means that natural laws are not sufficient to ground their rationality. (from 3 and 7)
(9) Causation of beliefs by some combination of chance and natural law is also insufficient for rational belief. (from 6 and 8)
(10) Therefore
(a) If a belief results solely by chance then it is not rational. (from 6)
(b) If a belief results solely from natural laws then it is not rational. (from 8)
(c) If a belief results from a combination of chance and natural law then it is not rational. (from 9)
Therefore,
(11) If naturalism is true, then none of our beliefs are rational. (from 2 and 10)
(12) Therefore, belief in naturalism is not rational. (from 11)
I think this argument is quite strong, stronger in fact that Plantinga's. The remaining challenge is to defend the assumptions, which shouldn't be problematic because they are independently quite plausible.
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
the_rickster
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 19
| Posted 2/10/2003 6:36 PM (GMT -6) | |
Alan-
I have sinced realize the difficulty with the word rationality as you have pointed out. Thanks for your formulation of the argument. Could you or someone explain to me why atheism as a whole does not fall into the argument. In order to escape it, it seems that something to base rationality on must be posited. Lewis says this base must be rational itself. I don't see away around that either. Thanks.
rickster
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 2/11/2003 1:33 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
... it seems that something to base rationality on must be posited. Lewis says this base must be rational itself. I don't see away around that either.
Perhaps, but this is not obvious to me. Why does Lewis think that rationality must be grounded in something rational? Seems to me that all we need is to be able to form beliefs based on a grasp of the evidence and the laws of logic. Now one might argue that the laws of logic need to be grounded in God, but why do we need to go that far? Why can't an atheist simply posit the laws of logic as one of the basic constituents of reality? That maneuver seems to be excluded by naturalism, since the laws of logic--whatever they are--are not the kinds of things countenanced by naturalists, but atheists need not be naturalists.
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 2/11/2003 2:17 PM (GMT -6) | | Alan,
I agree that atheist often avoid this issue by saying that things like logic,
morals, perception of beauty are "basic constituents of reality."
But are they just avoiding the issue?
I guess I am transferring my discussion of the issue to the existence of moral absolutes.
Do you believe that an athiest can logically hold to the belief that moral absolutes are just "basic constituents of reality?"
Where does the universal moral code reside? Can morality really originate from the impersonal?
William Lane Craig has a cool article on the subject. He saysIf God does not exist, then what is the foundation for moral values?
More particularly, what is the basis for the value of human beings?
If God does not exist, then it is difficult to see any reason to think that human beings are special
or that their morality is objectively true.
Moreover, why think that we have any moral obligations to do anything?
Who or what imposes any moral duties upon us?
MY TEXT IS REALL MESSING UP!!!
Ross
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. - C.S. Lewis | | Back to Top | | |
| 29 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:19 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|