> PB: 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. ...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.*
>RS: 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 --
You have not shown internal logical inconsistency even one time. This
argument, that you continually repeat, does not show logical
inconsistency with the premise. It challenges the premise itself.
You keep confusing internal logical consistency with the premise.
Again, the confusion:
>RS: The trouble is, neither can yours [logically support objective
morality]! I have asked you dozens of times now to prove to me that
your system is logically objective.
The question concerning a moral system, that assumes either the
premise of materialism or the fact of God's existence, is not whether
it is logically objective, but whether the *claim* of objectivity
(independence, absoluteness, transcendence of the standard), if one is
made, is consistent with the premise.
Again, the confusion:
>PB: Furthermore, you are asking a requirement that you do not
fulfill yourself. You have not, and cannot, prove materialism.
>RS: Nor have I claimed that I could. I'm not the one claiming that
my moral system is transcendent and objective.
>PB: The second sentence misses the point (the content of the
argument could be over almost anything). The point is you cannot
prove your presupposition (of materialism).
>RS: What exactly am I supposed to *prove* here? I have
explained the foundation of my morality, why it is internally
consistent...
You aren't supposed to prove anything, as far as your premise is
concerned. That is the point. You don't prove a premise. Just be
internally consistent with your arguments that follow. That is all we
mean by logical consistency. That's it. It's a simple concept. You
then claim your case is consistent. Well...
Again, the confusion:
>RS: ...but every argument is based on *some* subjective assumption,
and Christian morality is also based on one (that we should do what
God says). Why is your subjective assumption better than my
subjective assumption?
This follows the above. You keep substituting "subjective assumption"
for "premise," or "presupposition." This is not a case of mutual
subjectivity with either claim equally valid. The claim of
materialism and the claim of Biblical Christian theism cannot both be
true. They are mutually exclusive. If one is true, the other must be
false. We must choose one or the other. Nobody is criticizing your
position because you make an initial assumption. The truth or falsity
of the premise is something you (at least initially) don't know. You
can't prove its false, we can't prove its true, because its a premise.
I've already conceded that. We have agreed that:
>PB: 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.
The question is: Is there anything we can do to tell which premise is
more likely to be true? I stated an alternative:
>PB: What I am suggesting is a different approach with conditions
that we both meet: 1) Start with our respective presuppositions, 2)
Logically extend arguments based on these presuppositions and see
where they go, and 3) Check for internal logical consistency in the
arguments and the ability of each to describe "moral" reality.
>RS: I've been doing that all along. It is Jim who is afraid to look
at the internal logical consistency of his argument.
If that is what you are doing, stop saying the premise is false, when
you cannot prove it is false, and evaluate the argument for internal
logical consistency on its own terms. Regarding the second sentence,
I don't know. You can ask him, but my guess is Jim's not afraid.
Again, the confusion:
>RS: And you are subjectively assuming that your initial assumption
is true. Hence, your whole moral system is subjective.
Yes, I think the assumption is true. There is no point in asserting
something I think is false. Your first statement is not accurate from
a Biblical point of view (since Biblical faith is not something one
conjures up by oneself), but for sake of argument, I'm willing to put
my underlying assumptions (even if subjective) up against yours and
see what falls out.
The second sentence of your argument does not follow (logically) the
first. This begs the question. The question is: Is the initial
assumption true? If so, it is not a subjective moral system. There
exists an independent moral system. If false, then and only then, are
you right. But as it is, you must assume that your premise
(materialism) is correct to make the charge. Of course you think your
premise is true, but that does not show internal logical inconsistency
starting with the Christian presupposition.
This is just an analogy, but you might think of it this way. Pretend
we were both blind. Someone tells me the sky is blue, and I believe
him. You say the sky is green, and that my belief that the sky is
blue is subjective because I subjectively assume that what the person
told me was correct. But whether the sky is blue or not is
independent of my assumption. It either is, or isn't, blue. The
color of the sky is not a subjective opinion, just because I had to
make an assumption. My initial assumptions (premises,
presuppositions) are either true or false, and everything else
follows.
Again:
>RS: Let me rephrase what I said. From a strictly logical point of
view, Christian morality is entirely subjective *unless* God's
existence can be proven.
Close, but not quite. It is entirely subjective if God's existence is
not true. There is a difference in the statements. Yours, again,
begs the question. Our cases start from the alternative
presuppositions of materialism or Biblical Christian theism.
Rich Knopp addressed this as follows:
>RK: 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.
Thus, the continual reiteration of assuming your premise to be true
as an argument against the logical consistency of the Christian
argument is continually irrelevant.
You do better elsewhere. Not only have you *not* shown logical
inconsistency, you have granted it:
>RS (6/3): 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.
>RS: Except that it rests on one HUGE assumption: the existence of
the Judeo-Christian God. If that 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.
I have addressed the "prove" premise/presupposition part previously
(keen alliteration, huh?). The point here is, there is nothing
inconsistent in the assertion of a transcendent, objective moral
standard with the presuppositional assumption of the Christian God
described in the Bible. Even you say so.
Some further confusion that will lead us to another post:
>RS (6/11): Let me provide a quick rundown. I'll make it simple. 1)
You claim that humanist morality is "inconsistent" because it founded
on a subjective assumption (that empathy for others is a good thing).
No. This does not appear to be a quote from anybody debating with
you, and this is wrong on two counts. 1) The particular assumption of
empathy as a good thing is not important for this point. The
"morality" that you argue for is subjective because subjectivity is
necessarily correlated with materialism. Any non-material value
construct you imagine (or I imagine) is subjective, if materialism is
true, because the only place it can originate is from chemical
reactions within a particular individual. 2) I (and I think others)
am *not* saying that Humanist morality is inconsistent because it is
founded on an initial assumption. It is inconsistent because it
provides no explanation for independent moral reality and, as a
result, inevitably contradicts itself.
>RS: 2) Following from this, you claim that *your* morality is
therefore superior, because it is logically consistent...
Sometimes, our individual morality may not be superior, but we
acknowledge a superior moral system, and our claim of this moral
system is logically consistent with our premise.
>RS: -- provided, of course, that one accepts God's will
It is consistent whether or not one accepts God's will.
>RS: 3) I ask why it is logical to accept God's will.
Because he is a holy, gracious creator God to whose kindness you owe
your every breath. As such, he has a right to make requirements of
us, and he tells us so. You can argue with him if you care to, but I
can't guarantee success.
>RS: 4) You respond "because God makes the rules and he can send you
to Hell if you don't".
Don't what? Is this an objection to the argument that has been
presented? Anyway, continuing what appears to be your line of
thought, we might add: How arrogant! Who does he think he is? God?
Well, actually, yes.
As for me, Russell, I would much rather trust in the objective rules
of a holy, righteous, gracious, creator God than have nothing but
subjective rules of sinful men.
To summarize: You have not shown logical inconsistency in the
assertion of transcendent, objective, absolute moral standards
starting with Biblical Christian presuppositions concerning God.
Furthermore, (I suggest, in more rational moments) you have granted
the consistency. So I hope (but confess, am not completely
optimistic), that we can move beyond this point.
Paul D. Brown, Ph.D.
MPI of Chemical Ecology at WSU
e-mail: pdbrown@mail.WSU.edu or pdb@uidaho.edu