<<At some point, the issue of _revelation_ must enter the discussion. We
can speculate about the existence and character of our Creator based upon
the world around us and our own in-built sense of morality, but sooner or
later, preferably sooner, we must ask whether or not our Creator (if he
exists) _revealed_ anything to his creatures.>>
Yes. Moral philosophy tells us, I believe, that there is an objective,
super-natural (in the literal meaning of that term) reality. But we don't get
to the WHO of that reality without revelation.
<< What I am saying is, if we see
that [1] most of (what we believe to be) God's actions are good and [2]
God -- in His revelations -- explicitly states that He is good, then if we
find some of God's actions puzzling and not obviously "good," we must
remember that our own judgment is both limited and suspect, and it is
sensible to give God the benefit of the doubt and believe God to be good.>>
Another good point. This is, in fact, part of classic theodicy (defense of God
against the charge that a good God would never allow evil to exist).
<<This is where revelation comes into play, again. Confronted by Pascal's
Wager, the prudent gambler does not throw up her hands and say, "Which
god?" The prudent gambler begins to search the past, and the present, for
anything which might reasonably be a revelation from a personal
ontological basis of reality; and if there are conflicting claims, the
prudent gambler will try to determine (by scholarship and perhaps
experimentation) which one has the ring of truth.>>
Yes. Pascal actually formulated his wager with reference to the CHRISTIAN God,
for which he offered ample evidence elsewhere. So, in effect, Pascal's Wager
is between Atheism and the God of the Bible.
Nor did Pascal assume the Wager would be the one argument that would compel
someone to believe. He intended it only to make people realize that we are
engaged in eternal questions and that one must not take a position lightly. He
wanted the Wager to "open the doors" of the mind, convinced that people who
truly sought ultimate answers would eventually find their way to Christ.
<<Thus we return, finally, to the subject of these posts, "How to Think
About Naturalism." I do not think that Naturalism's problem is that
personhood, self-consciousness, free will, values, or morality are
necessarily inconsistent with its assumptions. The problem with
Naturalism (aside from its inherent falsehood ;-) is a very old fashioned
problem: the objects of devotion it offers to its believers are not
worthy of devotion; they are no basis for hope.>>
I do believe that Naturalism has these inconsistencies. And I suspect the
Naturalist would answer this by saying, "You're right. There IS no hope. But
there is also no God. So at least I 'worship' the truth, while you worship
falsity."
I believe the only way to answer the Naturalist is this: Your system does not
allow you any way to find truth. Ultimately, your entire view is absurd. It is
chemicals passing judgement--ontological and provisional--upon other
chemicals. There is nothing more absurd than that.
Jim