<<As I mentioned before, there are some things about the arguments
put forth in this thread that have really bugged me. One is this
elevation of logic and logical consistency to the point where they
become almost like moral principles themselves. I fear some people
may go kill granny if they decide its logically consistent>>
That is exactly what I fear, too!
<< Suppose I, playing a materialist, answered your question: "no, I cannot
explain to you why Hitler was evil". What then? Am I now somehow
responsible for Hitlers actions? Am I immobilized by this question
to the point where I cannot condemn Hitler? No, I don't think so.>>
But I would continue to point that you cannot condemn Hitler without BORROWING
your morality from SOMEWHERE. Russell finds it inside his empathy for others.
And you know what? That is a CLUE (as Lewis puts it in his argument) as to the
true nature of morality--which, of course, comes back around to contradict the
materialist!
Here is how Kreeft and Tecelli summarize it:
1. Real moral obligation is a fact. We are really, truly, objectively
obligated to do good and avoid evil.
2. Either the atheistic view of reality is correct or the theistic one.
3. But the atheistic one is incompatible with there being moral obligation.
4. Therefore the theistic view of reality is correct.
The only way out of this conundrum, for the materialist, is to deny the truth
of #1. But if he does this, he forever gives up any ability to condemn any
behavior.
Truly, as Craig put it, the materialist cannot live consistently and happily.
For if he is consistent, he will be unhappy; if he is happy, he is being
inconsistent. I'll take theism.
So did Pascal. On these issues he was right, as always:
"There are three kinds of people: those who have sought God and found him,
those who are seeking and have not yet found, and those who neither seek nor
find. The first are reasonable and happy, the second are reasonable and
unhappy, the third are both unreasonable and unhappy."
<<Now, as to your
question: "Without using any theistic presupposition, can you explain
to me why Hitler was evil?". If I may be so bold :), it seems to me
that that's precisely what Lewis was trying to do.>>
Rather, Lewis used the FACT of moral sentiment as a CLUE that it has an
OBJECTIVE and PERSONAL source! Lewis FOLLOWED THE LOGIC of moral sentiment to
its THEISTIC root.
This is precisely what the materialist resists, and thus he lives forever in
contradiction!
<<I took the time to re-read book I of
C.S. Lewis <Mere Christianity>. I was greatly influenced by this
book when I first read it and am pleased to say that I'm even more
impressed now than previously. Whatever discomfort I felt when
reading various arguments presented in this thread disappear
when I read Lewis. Much of what has been said here has little to
do with what Lewis wrote. So, I would suggest everyone go back and
read Lewis again, especially if its been awhile.>>
With this I wholeheartedly agree!
Jim