morality

[RickD]

Would someone here please explain what this means in laymen's terms.

I think the basic problem we're trying to define here, RickD, stems from the fact that you can't say 'absolute morality requires an arbiter of absolute morality' without defining the characteristics of that arbiter. The key problem for presuppositional apologetics, then, is precisely that it presupposes what the definition of these characteristics actually are — as opposed to taking an objective view of them.

If you define the arbiter of absolute morality by simply saying it is the God of the bible, Yahweh, you're not actually saying anything about where that authority comes from without relying upon the presumption that the bible is absolutely, unquestionably true. And since it is the case that even Christian bible scholars, for at least the last 200 years, have conceded that this simply isn't the case, you're still left with the original problem.

Whereas, if you define the origins of morality as an emergent property of evolution, the problem of presumption does not arise — because we can trace the linage of organisms which display altruism, group solidarity and reciprocity to thousands of other species, with whom we happen to share a common ancestry.

So the problem for presuppositionalism is not merely that it demonstrably plays philosophical semantics, it's that even if it did begin to offer something as genuinely interesting — as so many of its adherents nevertheless believe it does — it would still have a long way to go before it even counterbalanced, let alone exceeded the weight of evidence, which explains the evolutionary origins of these traits.

[PaulSacramento]

I think he is saying that IF one says that absolute morality is based on a being ( God) then one must define that being.
As opposed to it being based on evolution since we can "just say" that the notion of absolute morality evolved.
Whatever that means.

Problem being that evolution doesn't care about morality, it cares about adaptation of the species to survive, which can even go against morals I and has of course).
Natural selection couldn't care less about morals either, only what allow for the proegation of the species.
IF an illusion, like morals, helps propegate the species then that illusion would pass on into the next gene pool as a "benefit", it being real or not is irrelevant.
Since that can be the case, whether absolute morals exist or not is irrelevant, as long as people believe and that allows for the propegation of the species.
If that be the case then ANY and EVERY world view that MAY help to propegate the species can be a fallacy ( including atheism and reason) because as long as it helps it doesn't matter if it is true.

[Echoside]

RickD, I read through the comments section and Alex is doing nothing more than defining what is good as what is profitable to the continuation of species. Evolution, etc. does not and CANNOT account for objective moral values. You have to arbitrarily assign a goal to what is moral in a secular viewpoint. Evolution's processes are only good if you deem evolution's processes a moral goal. Which is of course entirely fallacious from an objective standpoint.

Hume's Guillotine is a great example of this, and I don't think it's really been refuted by any secular ethics movements. Subjective values are as far as atheism goes in regards to moral truths.

To argue OM on any level you have to at least have some sort of belief in a higher power that makes it so.

[RickD]

Thanks for the posts guys. In the 3 podcasts I've listened to on their site, they still haven't answered, to my satisfaction anyway, how truth and morality can be accounted for in naturalism. I searched for "evolution of morality", and it basically says that human morality evolved.

[Echoside]

Thanks for the posts guys. In the 3 podcasts I've listened to on their site, they still haven't answered, to my satisfaction anyway, how truth and morality can be accounted for in naturalism. I searched for "evolution of morality", and it basically says that human morality evolved.

oh morality can be accounted for all right, but in a very subjective manner. The very statement "morality evolved" suggests so, an objective standard doesn't change.

[DannyM]

What’s this, Rick?

I think the basic problem we're trying to define here, RickD, stems from the fact that you can't say 'absolute morality requires an arbiter of absolute morality' without defining the characteristics of that arbiter.

Prove the claim there cannot be an arbiter without a full definition of the arbiter’s characteristics.

The key problem for presuppositional apologetics, then, is precisely that it presupposes what the definition of these characteristics actually are — as opposed to taking an objective view of them.

Of course. It wouldn’t be called presuppositionalism if it did not presuppose the characteristics of the God described in the Bible. And this is fallacious how? Circular? Is circularity in world-view fallacious? If so, then I guess they’ll be abandoning their world-view on a logical fallacy.

Are their views objective?

If you define the arbiter of absolute morality by simply saying it is the God of the bible, Yahweh, you're not actually saying anything about where that authority comes from without relying upon the presumption that the bible is absolutely, unquestionably true.

Where what authority comes from? God? God is necessarily eternal and self-sufficient.

And since it is the case that even Christian bible scholars, for at least the last 200 years, have conceded that this simply isn't the case, you're still left with the original problem.

Prove the Bible is contradicted, and try to refrain from obscure and irrelevant references.

Whereas, if you define the origins of morality as an emergent property of evolution, the problem of presumption does not arise

LOL. Doesn’t it?

— because we can trace the linage of organisms which display altruism, group solidarity and reciprocity to thousands of other species

These ideas can be dismissed as speculation emanating from a presupposed world-view: Darwinism. Explain how “altruism” has been traced and studied; in other words, expand on this vague assertion. Reciprocity, group selection and kin selection have nothing to do with altruism. These ideas
redefine altruism. The fact that they even use the term shows they’re being inconsistent with their world-view.

with whom we happen to share a common ancestry.

Prove common ancestry.

So the problem for presuppositionalism is not merely that it demonstrably plays philosophical semantics

It does not play semantics. It shows the absurdity of unbelief. Presuppositionalism is on rock solid ground. There is no rational objection to presuppositionalism, evidenced in the feeble argument before us.

it's that even if it did begin to offer something as genuinely interesting — as so many of its adherents nevertheless believe it does — it would still have a long way to go before it even counterbalanced, let alone exceeded the weight of evidence, which explains the evolutionary origins of these traits.

Do what? Again we have a non-statement. There is no “evolutionary explanation” for morality. There are ideas and speculations, which emanate from the presupposition of the Darwinian metaphor, but there is no evolutionary evidence (whatever that means) for morality, or altruism.

One of the central claims of presuppositionalism is that all world-views carry their own presuppositions. Here we see a prime example of one such world-view. Another of presuppositionalism’s claims is that all other world-views are, on inspection, reduced to absurdity. Again we see a nice example of this. We have astonishing claims being made in the name of “evidence”, and the absurdity here is that the evidence they speak of is not evidence at all. It’s mere speculation springing forth from a presupposed world-view. And the absurdity continues unabated, since they aren’t even aware that they are presupposing their world-view. It doesn’t get any better than this, Rick. They actually validate presuppositionalism.

[DannyM]

Rick,

RickD, I read through the comments section...

Am I missing something?

[RickD]

Rick,

RickD, I read through the comments section...

Am I missing something?

I believe Echoside is referring to their website, Danny.

[DannyM]

Rick,

RickD, I read through the comments section...

Am I missing something?

I believe Echoside is referring to their website, Danny.

Yeah, I'm up to speed now, sorry. Are you on their website debating them?

[jlay]

Danny pretty much nailed it.

[RickD]

Rick,

RickD, I read through the comments section...

Am I missing something?

I believe Echoside is referring to their website, Danny.

Yeah, I'm up to speed now, sorry. Are you on their website debating them?

I'm on their website, Danny. But, I wouldn't say I'm debating anyone. Just posting, asking questions, and getting a feel for who they are, and what they're about.

[DannyM]

Rick,

RickD, I read through the comments section...

Am I missing something?

I believe Echoside is referring to their website, Danny.

Yeah, I'm up to speed now, sorry. Are you on their website debating them?

I'm on their website, Danny. But, I wouldn't say I'm debating anyone. Just posting, asking questions, and getting a feel for who they are, and what they're about.

I saw your comment. For a mo there I wondered whose side you were on, Rick!

[narnia4]

Danny pretty much nailed it.

Totally.

I don't understand how bright people can completely miss some of the central points of presupposition apologetics. They still get hung up on "evidence", you'd think reductionists and materialists would be the one who would understand the assumptions they make in order to validate their own worldview but it just isn't so. Its really remarkable, a fundamental step that almost all of them don't see and subsequently fall flat on their face.

The funny thing is that even evidentialists still often "win" debates on the origins of morality, even after completely letting them off the hook on their presuppositions. Their claims about this evolutionary proof for morality and flaws in the Bible, I've seen the claims dozens of times but somehow I never see the evidence. Indeed, even if you're approaching it from the standpoint of an evidentialist, its still empty posturing.

[DannyM]

Indeed, even if you're approaching it from the standpoint of an evidentialist, it’s still empty posturing.

Never a truer word spoken.

[RickD]

Narnia4 wrote:

I don't understand how bright people can completely miss some of the central points of presupposition apologetics

1Corinthians 2:14 "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."

It's not about intelligence.