Just as, in Christianity, the source of the standard stems from the
Christians. Of course, they *claim* that it comes from outside, but
that is just a subjective opinion, without any objective, logical
evidence to back it up.
>>RS: There is no such thing as an "objective moral standard".
>>Christianity doesn't have it any more than materialism does.
>>RS: Even the Christian moral code has not been logically proven to have
>>arisen from a higher power than the human species.
>>RS: The laws of nature say nothing about morality, and attempts to derive
morality
>>from such laws have always been disastrous. Morality, as humans
>>define it, is based on *emotion*.
>
>However, subjectivity is not the necessary consequence of a Christian
>worldview.
Subjectivity is a part of *any* belief system, whether the followers of
that system recognize it or not. Christians may think that they are
truly objective, but they are just as subjective as the rest of us, and
the fragmented nature of Christian morality only proves that.
>The Christian worldview claims the opposite, that a moral
>standard independent of anyone's particular existence, is in effect.
It claims that, but it fails to provide any solid evidence. Hence, one
can make up almost any moral standard that one wants and claim that it
is "God's will".
>Since subjectivity is not a necessary consequence of a Christian
>worldview, "subjective" as applied to the Christian view in an equal
>sense to the materialist view, is probably not the correct term to
>use. Russel, when you use the term "subjective," what I believe you
>really mean is, that Christians assume a premise (presupposition),
>i.e. there is a God and he is revealed in scripture, and that this
>presupposition cannot be proven any more than the premise of
>materialism. You would simply assert that the premise is wrong.
>
>If this is what you mean, there is a sense in which I agree. You are
>right in that logic cannot provide everything. Logic may be able to
>get us from point A to point B, but cannot supply point A. Since we
>don't know everything, everyone makes certain assumptions about
>reality that become part of their premises (whether they recognize
>them or not - even in practicing science, I might add, which is one
>reason this discussion is important).
>
>However, you also seem to think (in many posts) that some of us are trying to
>prove the existence of God, and that we need to before we can make a case.
Not
>exactly.
Yes, exactly. That a-priori assumption (the existence of God and His desires
concerning human behavior) is *the* foundation of Christian morality, and
if one wants to claim that Christian morality is absolutely objective, one
must objectively prove the a-priori assumption.
>Furthermore, you are asking a requirement that you do not fulfill yourself.
>You have not, and cannot, prove materialism.
Nor have I claimed that I could. I'm not the one claiming that my moral
system is transcendent and objective.
All I said was that, just as my moral system rests on a subjective assumption
(that it is a good thing to have empathy for one another), so does Christian
morality (that God exists and He wants us to have empathy for one another).
>We have already agreed above that
>the assertion of God's existence is a presupposition, like
>materialism. As a Christian, God is my starting point, not the end to
>be proved.
That's fine. Your system works for you, my system works for me. They are
both workable, self-supporting systems. That's all I am saying.
>I don't have to "prove God" any more than you have to
>"prove" materialism. However, if I would argue anything, I would
>argue that the existence of God is self-evident, and the inability of
>materialists to maintain consistency with their own premise of materialism
>is direct testimony to that fact.
And I could just as easily argue that the inability of Christians to maintain
a similar consistency is pretty solid proof that God doesn't exist.
>Even the materialists testify to
>transcendent non-material realities such as rationality and morality
>(see following post).
Once again, you are proceeding on the (subjective) assumption that
rationality and morality are transcendent concepts.
>But if they are consistent with their premise,
>why would they have any reason to assume the reality of such things?
Why would we not?
_____________________________________________________________
| Russell Stewart |
| http://www.rt66.com/diamond/ |
|_____________________________________________________________|
| Albuquerque, New Mexico | diamond@rt66.com |
|_____________________________|_______________________________|
If Rush is Right, then I'll take what's Left.