>There are systems of logic that are internally consistent. Euclidean
>geometry is one example. But, for the purposes of this discussion, the
>outside referrent is the rationality of the human mind, specifically MY
>mind. I accept MY capacity for rationality as an axiom, and the capacity of
>other humans for rationality I have determined by observation.
I have two quick points here:
It seems to me that logic is a consequence of a rational mind. Therefore, I
fail to see how your rational mind can be an outside referrent for the logic
that it produces. It sounds circular to me.
Another point that I borrow from Blaise Pascal:
Let those who have so much confidence in the rational human mind spend a few
hours trying to do Euclidean geometry with a fly buzzing around one's head.
Do you really want to put so much faith in something that can be defeatd by
such a simple distraction?
>>DM<< This simply means
>>that logic is of no use in deciding to be a theist or atheist.... Faced with
>>this choice, a person who is sceptical about unverified revelation, faith, or
>>authority will reasonably choose atheism or agnosticism.>>
This sounds like a logical argument for atheism, but you state that logic is
useless in deciding to be theist or atheist. Which is it?
On this point, why don't you try C.S. Lewis' book, Surprised by Joy. It
documents how an atheist can logically decide that God is real.
>One reasonably chooses based on one's own standards of reason. I
>"reasonably" choose to live as though there were no God, for the same
>reasons I choose to live as though there are no fairies, trolls, or pixies.
>To choose otherwise, in the face of NO acceptable evidence,
Derek, this begs the question--what would constitute for you, acceptable
evidence for the existence of God? Let's try a parallel of logic here. I
presume that you believe, like most of us, that men landed and walked on the
moon. But on what basis do we believe this? I also presume that you were
not one of those who traveled to the moon; therefore, your belief is based
on the testimony of those who claim to have personal knowledge of the moon
landing. So, by what logic do you reject those who claim personal knowledge
of God? How do you know that the basis for believing that men walked on the
moon is more convincing than the existence of God if you have never
encountered either situation?
>There is an objective statement that can be made, and, I understand, is
>generally believed by theists, agnostics and atheists. There is no PROOF for
>the existence of God. Beyond that statement, all statements of a
>religious/philosophical nature are subjective.
By the same token, there is no PROOF of any scientific theory either.
However, there does exist justification of what we believe. Science and
philosophical postivism justifies belief based on empirical justification.
Metaphysical beliefs, including atheism, are justified differently. So, the
fact that there is no way to empirically justify belief in the existence of
God is a non-argument. To those who believe, belief in God IS justifiable
and subjectivity vs objectivity is irrelevant to the justification.
>JB>But atheism, by its terms, cannot give us universal morality.
>
>I fail to see why this is a problem. Many non-monotheistic communities have
>lived and now live in greater harmony than many monotheistic communities.
But the point is where do they find their morality? Because they do not
believe in God does not mean that their morality does not have its source in
God. Humans, whether they do or do not believe in God generally hold a
strong sense of what is moral. But at the same time, humans also tend to
act with great depravity. For example, a sociopath would not have second
thoughts about shooting someone for their Chicago Bulls warm-up jacket. But
that same person likely would be incensed if someone stole his Air Jordan's.
Atheists have not adequately explained this dualism of human nature. Your
rational mind is not a sufficient explanation here.
>And I also note that, while monotheistic religions can give us a theory of
>universal morality, they have certainly failed to deliver a practice of
>universal morality.
Perhaps you need to explore the claims of Christianity more closely.
Explaining God as a source of universial morality, and humans as imperfect
beings goes farther in explainign the human condition than any atheistic
rationalism. If you worship at the alter of rationalism, you must account
for this dualism in the world. As an atheist you apparently believe that
your rational mind is the source of morality. If it is, then please explain
why, and explain the lapses of morality in rational beings. If, however,
the rational mind is not the source of human morality, then please explain
where humans get their sense of morality.
>In view of your question below, I would ask you for a logical argument
>confirming that the evils perpetrated by Stalin were a specific result of
>his atheism, rather than any other cause.
>
>As a follow-up you might provide a logical argument, consistent with the
>first, confirming that the evils perpetrated by Torquemada were or were not
>not a specific result of his theism, rather than any other cause.
It also has been pointed out that Hitler was Catholic, and that this is
sufficient reason to disavow any belief in God. However, if you take the
time to explore closely you will learn that Christianity makes no claims
regarding the perfection of humans. BUT, Christianity has an explaination
for these moral lapses, as well as an explanation for our ability to
recognize what perfection would be like.
>JB>As I've asked many times before: Can the atheist give a logical argument to
>>prove that Stalin was evil? I don't think so.
>
DM:>I don't think so, either.
>
>Stalin wasn't proclaimed evil by any process of logic. Stalin was evil
>because he was JUDGED to be evil by a consensus of those who were influenced
>by his life and deeds.
Maybe we have a different understanding of logic! Doesn't judgement imply
some degree of logic regarding what is right and wrong?
>Good and evil are not subject to logical argument. Good and evil are, and
>always have been, defined by each person for themselves, and by the
>consensus of people wielding power/influence in any group of people.
This is just not true. Some people may RATIONALIZE their evil to make it
seem good, but the true test is when others try to do to them what they have
done to others. A simple example is the one I used above--That is, it may
be easy for someone to rationalize why he deserves a Bull's jacket more than
someone else (i.e., he has defined for himself, and perhaps has the
consensus of people wielding power in his neighborhood, that he has more
claim to the jacket than the one who bought it), but just listen to him
scream when someone makes a similar judgement about his Jordan's. Where
does he get the sense that someone should not take things that belong to
him? After you answer that, tell me where he also got the idea that he can
take what he wants from someone else. Explain the logical source of this
dualism.
>Can a theist give a logical argument to prove that any person of their
>choice was good?
This is not a claim of Christianity. Actually, we claim quite the opposite.
So if you want a logical claim that anyone is inherently bad, you've got it
all around you--as you have noted.
In conclusion:
The imperfection of Christians is not proof against the faith--rather it is
part of the faith. It explains more than rationalism does about the human
nature--in particular, it explains the duality of humankind without offering
some hand-waving regarding relative rationalism.
This duality of humanity means that we all have a tendency to act on selfish
self-interest, while simultaneously valuing altruism.
Now this is irrational.
Peace,
steve
P.S. FYI, I'll be out of town for awhile, so please don't take my lack of
furhter discussion as a sign of disinterest.
__________________________________________________________________________
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D. Phone: (608) 263-9137
Associate Professor FAX: (608) 263-4226
Dept. of Human Oncology and email: ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu
UW Comprehensive Cancer Ctr
University of Wisconsin
Madison, WI 53792
"...a university is a collection of disparate academic entrepreneurs united
only by a common grievance over parking." Clark Kerr, former Chancellor
of the Univ. of California
__________________________________________________________________________