> At first, I was reluntant to pursue this thread further, since it
>may appear to some to have only tangential relation to an "evolution"
>reflector. But then again, I concluded that the existence of moral
>obligation IS very relevant to the topic: any evolutionary view must account
>for it, and naturalistic evolution, in my view, cannot sufficiently do so.
Nor was it ever intended to. We have emotions and empathy for that.
> Before Russell pats his atheistic/materialistic self on the back too
>soon, several critical issues remain for him to resolve (which presupposes
>that they must be specifically and directly addressed).
> (1) Russell has not given any specific response to the distinction
>drawn between what is ontologically posited and what is epistemologically
>"proveable." What kind of an ONTOLOGICAL connection does the naturalistic
>evolutionaist have to justify a universal moral obligation? My contention:
>there is none.
I don't understand what you're asking here. You'll have to be a little more
clear.
> (2) Russell fundamentally misunderstands the nature of what must be
>"demonstrated" here. I am looking for a logical CONNECTION between a
>philosophical system (whether it be theistic or naturalistic) and the
>resulting parameters and grounds for morality. In logical terms, what is
>sought is the LOGICAL CONNECTION BETWEEN the "if" and the "then" (i.e., "if
>>? >? >? then"). What a system like orthodox Christian theism does is
>provide a logical (and ontological) ground for justifying the claim to
>universal morality: IF a transcendent, personal, and creator God exists,
>THEN there is an objective (and ontological) basis for universal morality.
And I provide a similar logic: IF one has empathy for others' emotions, THEN
the logical course of action is to respect others' rights.
Of course, one will ask: what if one *doesn't* have empathy for others'
emotions?
Well, as I have said, the vast majority of people do. And for that minority who
don't, we have laws, police, and jails to deal with them.
Both systems provide the logical connection you look for, and both rest on an
IF that cannot be logically proven. So on what grounds do you claim the theistic
one to be superior?
> Russell's response, however, is to say that this rests upon a "huge
>assumption" regarding the existence of God. He then asserts, "If [God's
>existence] cannot be proven (and it hasn't), then the logic goes right out
>the window and Christian morality becomes just as subjective as any other."
>But in doing this, Russell is illegitimately demanding (and falsely
>assuming) that the "if" component has to be PROVEN before the CONNECTION
>between the "if/then" can be legitimized. This is simply not the case.
>Whether the "if" is ACTUALLY true or not is irrelevant to the question
>regarding the plausibility of the LOGICAL CONNECTION.
Fine. Your logic is perfect IF your initial assumption is true. That still
doesn't gain you anything, and it *certainly* doesn't make your system any
more logical than mine.
> In fact, when put in simple syllogistic terms, Russell's "illogical"
>response becomes apparent:
> P1: If a transcendent God exists, then an objective, universal
>moral obligation exists. [G > M]
> P2: A transcendent God exists. [G]
> Therefore, an objective, universal moral obligtion exists.
>
> Now Russell wants to say that unless premise 2 is PROVEN, Christian
>morality is "as subjective" as any other. But, again, the whole point is
>whether the CONNECTION in the hypothetical (i.e., premise 1) is warranted,
>not whether the Christian God exists.
You are really reaching here.
>(Actually, this is HALF the point.
>The other half is in response to Russell's own implied hypothetical: "If a
>transcendent God does NOT exist, a universal moral obligation still exists."
>What I (and some others) are saying is that THERE IS NO PLAUSIBLE LOGICAL
>CONNECTION BETWEEN THE 'IF' AND THE 'THEN' IN THIS IMPLIED HYPOTHETICAL.
>Russell has given some PERSONAL reasons for his own morality, but he hasn't
>yet given any sufficient basis for his claim about UNIVERSAL moral OBLIGATION.)
Yes I have. You just haven't paid attention.
_____________________________________________________________
| Russell Stewart |
| http://www.rt66.com/diamond/ |
|_____________________________________________________________|
| Albuquerque, New Mexico | diamond@rt66.com |
|_____________________________|_______________________________|
If Rush is Right, then I'll take what's Left.