Re: logic makes a comeback

Steve Stolz (steves@uccs.com)
Mon, 02 Jun 1997 14:26:30 -0500

Russell Stewart wrote:
>
> At 10:26 PM 6/1/97 PST, you wrote:
> > Although one does not prove a premise, something one can do (as
> > has been noted many times in various posts) is look for internal
> > logical consistency in the argument. Although it does not affect
> > the argument itself, one can also look at the practical
> > outworkings (behavior) of those who claim the argument (Jim Bell
> > has addressed this somewhat as far as this effects Christians or
> > other theists). Russel, you have done a little of the latter
> > (with allegations about crusaders, etc.) but have completely
> > ignored the former. For example, in responding to a previous post
> > of mine (not to mention numerous others), you did not answer a
> > single question that was raised, nor did you show how the
> > Christian position of declaring that there are transcendent moral
> > standards was logically inconsistent with the premise.
>
> I have shown this several times. It's a simple argument, so I'll review
> it here:
>
> Christian morality rests on the a-priori assumption that God exists,
> and that He wants us to behave in a certain way (for example, love one
> another). However, since there is no objective logical evidence for
> God's existence, much less His motivations, one can develop a transcendent
> Christian standard that claims just about anything -- the inferiority of
> non-whites, His desire for "Good Christians" to kill homosexuals, abortion
> doctors, communists, Muslims, Jews, or whatever else.
>
> [ snip ]

While I'm no expert, Catholism does not *assume* the existence of God
and the absolute authority of written scripture (sola scriptura).
Catholism begins by approaching the Bible as any other ancient work,
and from textual criticism concludes that the accuracy of the
text is more certain than the accuracy of any other ancient work.

Next, the Bible is looked at historically, and the life, death and
reported resurrection of Jesus is examined. Using the Gospels,
extrabiblical writings from the early centuries and what we know
of human nature, Catholicism concludes that Jesus what either
what he claimed to be or was a madman. They then go on to rule
out his being a madman, and hence, all that he said must be true.

While this explanation is over-simplified, I just wanted to point
out that not all Christians begin with an assumption. Catholicism
begins with a document and an historical examination, from which
the claims of Jesus are concluded to be true.

Steve Stolz
steves@uccs.com