Do you believe in God?
For instance, here is a similar argument:
1) A person has acted immorally if they say a number.
2) If a person says "ten," then that person has said a number.
3) If a person says "ten," then that person has acted immorally.
This is a sound argument if we understand (1) to be a stipulative definition. But this is just because we have defined a new word "morality," and has nothing to do with actual morality.
I didn't think that the definition would be controversal.
I will seek a new definition.
I will seek a new definition.
Anyone can stipulate a definition of the word "morality." This is trivial and just as open to materialists as theists. The question we are interested in is whether your stipulated definition of morality matches up to some interesting part of reality.
For instance, here is a similar argument:
1) A person has acted immorally if they say a number.
2) If a person says "ten," then that person has said a number.
3) If a person says "ten," then that person has acted immorally.
This is a sound argument if we understand (1) to be a stipulative definition. But this is just because we have defined a new word "morality," and has nothing to do with actual morality.
This will be a waste of your time. Given any definition that you provide, I will still want to know what your persuasive deductive argument is that it is true - that it describes morality in the world, not just in your dictionary of words.
For instance, here is a similar argument:
1) A person has acted immorally if they say a number.
2) If a person says "ten," then that person has said a number.
3) If a person says "ten," then that person has acted immorally.
This is a sound argument if we understand (1) to be a stipulative definition. But this is just because we have defined a new word "morality," and has nothing to do with actual morality.
This will be a waste of your time. Given any definition that you provide, I will still want to know what your persuasive deductive argument is that it is true - that it describes morality in the world, not just in your dictionary of words.
Here is the argument that is most persuasive for me personally:
P1: All actions in which a person violates a command of God is immoral.*
P2: The act of killing a baby for fun violates a command of God. **
Co: The act of killing a baby for fun is immoral.
*The biblical word for an immoral act would be sin. The Bible defines sin as the transgression of the law. (1 John 3:8,9)
**Of course, killing a baby for fun violates many of God's commands.
P1: All actions in which a person violates a command of God is immoral.*
P2: The act of killing a baby for fun violates a command of God. **
Co: The act of killing a baby for fun is immoral.
*The biblical word for an immoral act would be sin. The Bible defines sin as the transgression of the law. (1 John 3:8,9)
**Of course, killing a baby for fun violates many of God's commands.
Also, I see no support for your definition of sin in 1 John 3:8-9
8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God
9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God
Sorry, the verse is 1 John 3:4.
I think that you missed a question that I asked earlier:
Do you agree or disagree with the conclusion of my argument?
Do you agree or disagree with the conclusion of my argument?
FWIW, I also disagree with this claim.
I'm treating sinful and immoral as synonyms.
FWIW, I also disagree with this claim.
Thanks.
1. Whoever commits sin also breaks the law.
2. Sin is the breaking of the law.
3. Sin and immorality are the same thing.
That is not an argument, just a series of assertions. (2) just seems to be a restatement of (1). (3) is assumed without justification, but is in no way derived from (1) and (2). I'm interested in your deductive argument that has as its conclusion:
"All actions in which a person violates a command of God is immoral."
More accurately, I should say that I think the set of "commands of God" is the empty set and so this is functionally equivalent to amorality, which I disagree with.
So do you not have a deductive argument that justifies your belief that all actions in which a person violates a command of God are immoral? Should I infer from this that Christians might as well murder, rape, and pillage if they want to since they have no rational justification for their moral views?
So do you not have a deductive argument that justifies your belief that all actions in which a person violates a command of God are immoral? Should I infer from this that Christians might as well murder, rape, and pillage if they want to since they have no rational justification for their moral views?
The religion does not correspond to reality, and everyone either knows it or chooses not to know it. It's kind of like that scripture that says god is obvious just from the nature of things. This is a pure con, the exact way a con works, you just turn the truth around. All of the natural world and systems make it apparent that the god of the Bible is not feasible or reasonable, so they say exactly the opposite. Like Trump. That's the MO of it.
So do you not have a deductive argument that justifies your belief that all actions in which a person violates a command of God are immoral? Should I infer from this that Christians might as well murder, rape, and pillage if they want to since they have no rational justification for their moral views?
P2: A person who kills a baby for fun is violating a command of God.
C: A person who kills a baby for fun has done an immoral act.
If you recall, my "challenge" to you was for you to produce a deductively valid argument that you would find persuasive that had the conclusion "Killing babies for fun is immoral."
The above is an argument that I would find persuasive, being an adherent of the so-called Divine Command Theory of Ethics.
Obviously, if one rejects the Bible as an authoritative source for morality, then my argument would not be persuasive.
Which means I will next proceed with giving reasons that I believe support the supernatural nature of the Bible.
I will dedicate a thread to that task. (I'll basically be doing a copy/paste from an apologetics article I wrote a few years ago.)
See y'all there!
(And here too, of course.)
P1: If a person violates a command of God, then that person has done an immoral act.
P2: A person who kills a baby for fun is violating a command of God.
C: A person who kills a baby for fun has done an immoral act.
The above is an argument that I would find persuasive, being an adherent of the so-called Divine Command Theory of Ethics.
Obviously, if one rejects the Bible as an authoritative source for morality, then my argument would not be persuasive.
Which means I will next proceed with giving reasons that I believe support the supernatural nature of the Bible.
I will dedicate a thread to that task. (I'll basically be doing a copy/paste from an apologetics article I wrote a few years ago.)
See y'all there!
(And here too, of course.)
P2: A person who kills a baby for fun is violating a command of God.
C: A person who kills a baby for fun has done an immoral act.
The above is an argument that I would find persuasive, being an adherent of the so-called Divine Command Theory of Ethics.
Obviously, if one rejects the Bible as an authoritative source for morality, then my argument would not be persuasive.
Which means I will next proceed with giving reasons that I believe support the supernatural nature of the Bible.
I will dedicate a thread to that task. (I'll basically be doing a copy/paste from an apologetics article I wrote a few years ago.)
See y'all there!
(And here too, of course.)
If you recall, my "challenge" to you was for you to produce a deductively valid argument that you would find persuasive that had the conclusion "Killing babies for fun is immoral."
I am not aware of such an argument for anything other than maybe "I exist." Certainly not for something as complex as a specific moral claim about killing. This is true for theists just as much as atheists. I've talked about this in the past, but I reject foundationalism as a failed epistemic model and instead am a holist about justification. Similarly, I view moral systems as models for organizing our most general normative claims about human behavior and purpose in the world for coherence and generative capacity.
So in my own moral model I would say that all humans above a certain cognitive capacity should be treated as having inherent worth and dignity as value-creating entities. Our capacity to love, hate, create great works of art and thought, perform deeds like fly to the moon, and so on is part of what it means to be human and insofar as we value these capacities in ourselves we should value them in others. Killing anyone just for our own pleasure is incompatible with valuing that person's inherent dignity and worth.
But I wouldn't regard this argument as generally persuasive unless the most central claims of this framework were already accepted. Thus, if I was trying to actually persuade someone of this claim, I would first figure out their core moral commitments and then create an argument on that basis.
So in my own moral model I would say that all humans above a certain cognitive capacity should be treated as having inherent worth and dignity as value-creating entities. Our capacity to love, hate, create great works of art and thought, perform deeds like fly to the moon, and so on is part of what it means to be human and insofar as we value these capacities in ourselves we should value them in others. Killing anyone just for our own pleasure is incompatible with valuing that person's inherent dignity and worth.
But I wouldn't regard this argument as generally persuasive unless the most central claims of this framework were already accepted. Thus, if I was trying to actually persuade someone of this claim, I would first figure out their core moral commitments and then create an argument on that basis.
Original Position's comments just reminded me that I was surprised to see you accept my definition of moral/immoral ("immoral behaviour is another way of saying causing unnecessary harm or suffering to another person") as a satisfactory response to your question.
You said
The fact that you didn't find it objectionable was something I found interesting, since that's not how YOU define it, at least when you're in 'apologetics mode'**, which would be immoral==sin.
What I was expecting to hear from you would have been somewhat equivalent of Original Position's pushback to your attempts to answer him. Yet, you didn't even ask why I associated morality with causing unnecessary harm.
Beyond "make an argument" demands, I think it reveals something about you, that you already understand morality as being about causing unnecessary harm, and only when you go into 'apologetics mode' that you switch to a completely different meaning.
Similarly, how you occasionally declare "professing atheists are suppressing the truth" while you are in 'apologetics mode', but then seem to understand that atheists actually don't believe when in 'conversation mode'.
(It's slightly off topic from your line, but do you have any comments on this, Original Position?)
You said
Premiss #1 is a stipulative definition, which BF proposed and I didn't find objectionable for the purposes of my discussion with him.. A stipulative definition doesn't require an "argument", since stipulative definitions aren't truth claims.
I didn't think that the definition would be controversal.
I didn't think that the definition would be controversal.
What I was expecting to hear from you would have been somewhat equivalent of Original Position's pushback to your attempts to answer him. Yet, you didn't even ask why I associated morality with causing unnecessary harm.
Beyond "make an argument" demands, I think it reveals something about you, that you already understand morality as being about causing unnecessary harm, and only when you go into 'apologetics mode' that you switch to a completely different meaning.
Similarly, how you occasionally declare "professing atheists are suppressing the truth" while you are in 'apologetics mode', but then seem to understand that atheists actually don't believe when in 'conversation mode'.
(It's slightly off topic from your line, but do you have any comments on this, Original Position?)
Original Position's comments just reminded me that I was surprised to see you accept my definition of moral/immoral ("immoral behaviour is another way of saying causing unnecessary harm or suffering to another person") as a satisfactory response to your question.
You said
The fact that you didn't find it objectionable was something I found interesting, since that's not how YOU define it, at least when you're in 'apologetics mode'**, which would be immoral==sin.
What I was expecting to hear from you would have been somewhat equivalent of Original Position's pushback to your attempts to answer him. Yet, you didn't even ask why I associated morality with causing unnecessary harm.
Beyond "make an argument" demands, I think it reveals something about you, that you already understand morality as being about causing unnecessary harm, and only when you go into 'apologetics mode' that you switch to a completely different meaning.
Similarly, how you occasionally declare "professing atheists are suppressing the truth" while you are in 'apologetics mode', but then seem to understand that atheists actually don't believe when in 'conversation mode'.
(It's slightly off topic from your line, but do you have any comments on this, Original Position?)
You said
The fact that you didn't find it objectionable was something I found interesting, since that's not how YOU define it, at least when you're in 'apologetics mode'**, which would be immoral==sin.
What I was expecting to hear from you would have been somewhat equivalent of Original Position's pushback to your attempts to answer him. Yet, you didn't even ask why I associated morality with causing unnecessary harm.
Beyond "make an argument" demands, I think it reveals something about you, that you already understand morality as being about causing unnecessary harm, and only when you go into 'apologetics mode' that you switch to a completely different meaning.
Similarly, how you occasionally declare "professing atheists are suppressing the truth" while you are in 'apologetics mode', but then seem to understand that atheists actually don't believe when in 'conversation mode'.
(It's slightly off topic from your line, but do you have any comments on this, Original Position?)
I don't understand why you keep repeating yourself with this argument. I'm asking for your justification for P1, not C. P1 is a premise here, not a conclusion. I want your argument demonstrating that P1 is true. Telling me that you accept Divine Command Theory just tells me you accept P1, not your argument for it. You don't need to start another thread, or post an article you previously wrote. Just answer my question right here. What is your argument for P1?
You keep asking this of me. The first time you asked me was after I demonstrated that your claim that materialism implies amorality was false. You didn't have a response to my argument and so instead asked this question. I answered it then like this:
To this you responded with a non sequitur about the nature of nihilism and then dropped it. I don't really have anything to add to this, so you should just respond to what I've already written.
You keep asking this of me. The first time you asked me was after I demonstrated that your claim that materialism implies amorality was false. You didn't have a response to my argument and so instead asked this question. I answered it then like this:
To this you responded with a non sequitur about the nature of nihilism and then dropped it. I don't really have anything to add to this, so you should just respond to what I've already written.
Macro questions precede micro questions.
For example, the micro question, "Is lying morally wrong" could only be answered by first answering the macro question, "What makes anything morally wrong?"
Another example would be, "Why does God allow human suffering?" (a micro question). Before that question could be answered, the macro-question "Why does God allow anything?" would have to be answered.
I will dedicate a thread tomorrow to reasons why the Bible is to be trusted.
There are a number of acceptable definitions of morality. But, as an adherent of the Divine Command Theory, any definition that I would find acceptable would at least have to be consistent with the Divine Command Theory. "Causing unnecessary harm is immoral" certainly follows from my biblical definition.
My justification for P1 is that that is what the Bible teaches.
Macro questions precede micro questions.
For example, the micro question, "Is lying morally wrong" could only be answered by first answering the macro question, "What makes anything morally wrong?"
Another example would be, "Why does God allow human suffering?" (a micro question). Before that question could be answered, the macro-question "Why does God allow anything?" would have to be answered.
I will dedicate a thread tomorrow to reasons why the Bible is to be trusted.
Macro questions precede micro questions.
For example, the micro question, "Is lying morally wrong" could only be answered by first answering the macro question, "What makes anything morally wrong?"
Another example would be, "Why does God allow human suffering?" (a micro question). Before that question could be answered, the macro-question "Why does God allow anything?" would have to be answered.
I will dedicate a thread tomorrow to reasons why the Bible is to be trusted.
4) The Bible is to be trusted.
5) The Bible teaches that if a person violates a command of God, then that person has done an immoral act.
P1) Therefore, if a person violates a command of God, then that person has done an immoral act.
Okay. This isn't exactly valid, although you can easily enough change it around to be so. I don't accept (4), which seems clearly false. Please don't start a new thread tomorrow, just improve this argument into a valid form and give me your argument for your improved version of (4).
God Himself determines what harms are necessary and which are not.
Why You Can Trust the Bible - Page 1 of 4
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
2 Timothy 3:16-17
Voddie Baucham explains why we can trust the Bible (based on 2 Peter 1:16-21):
"The Bible is a reliable collection of historical documents, written by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses, and they report supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies and they claim that their writings are divine rather than human in origin."
In his book A Peculiar Glory, John Piper writes, “The whole bible authenticates itself by shining with the glory of the one who inspired it.”
This is from the Westminster Confession of Faith:
“The authority of the Holy Scriptures, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received because it it is the Word of God...our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.”
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
2 Timothy 3:16-17
Voddie Baucham explains why we can trust the Bible (based on 2 Peter 1:16-21):
"The Bible is a reliable collection of historical documents, written by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses, and they report supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies and they claim that their writings are divine rather than human in origin."
In his book A Peculiar Glory, John Piper writes, “The whole bible authenticates itself by shining with the glory of the one who inspired it.”
This is from the Westminster Confession of Faith:
“The authority of the Holy Scriptures, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received because it it is the Word of God...our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.”
Why You Can Trust the Bible - Page 2 of 4
1. The Bible contains hundreds of fulfilled prophecies. These aren’t vague prophecies like Nostradamus. Specific people and places are named. There are over a hundred prophecies that were fulfilled by Jesus Christ hundreds of years after the prophecies were written.
2 .The Bible is a unified whole. It is 66 books, written by about 40 authors, on three continents, in three languages, over a 1,500-year period, by such diverse authors as kings and sheepherders. Yet it is completely one in consistency and its overarching theme of mankind’s creation, fall and redemption.
3. The Bible is packed with unmatched insights and profundity (i.e. answers the big questions of life): What am I?, Where did I come from?, What is my purpose in life?, What has gone wrong with the world?, What is my destiny?, What is the solution to our problems?
4. The historical, scientific and archaeological accuracy of the Bible proves it’s
trustworthiness.
5. Over the centuries the Bible (and its readers!) have been subject to being banned and burned. Every attempt has been made to destroy and/or discredit the Bible. Yet it has been supernaturally preserved!
6. Billions of lives have been enriched and radically changed by the truths found in the Bible.
7. The honesty and bluntness of the Bible writers enhances the credibility of the veracity of what they say.
8. The Bible has never been successfully duplicated.
9. Jesus Christ could not have been a creation of fiction:
Only Jesus Christ exemplifies perfect justice and perfect mercy.... Only Jesus Christ exhibits a majesty and meekness like nobody else in history.... Only Jesus Christ as judge suffers the punishment that the criminal (you and me!) that we deserved.... Jesus Christ is both fully man and fully God... It is only Jesus Christ that man must not only believe in what He said, but must also
believe on who He truly is and what He did for His elect... Only through trusting in Jesus Christ can man be delivered from the penalty, power, and (ultimately) even the presence of sin.
10. We measure time from the date of Jesus’ birth.
11. Christianity is not “works based”, unlike every other religion, philosophy, worldview and self-help program.
12. Jesus Christ is the most revered, influential, controversial, and talked-about person in history.
13. Jesus’ impact on virtually every nation, culture, age-group, socio-economic class ,intellectual level and ethnicity is unmatched in world history.
14. Unlike complicated “philosophies”, even the most simple-minded person can be saved and have joy in Christ. (A nine-year-old can’t have joy in Plato or Kant.)
15. The Bible is the best-selling and the most distributed book of all time. Millions of copies have been given away for free. No book is more quoted or translated than the Bible.
16. The Bible is the most scrutinized book of all time. Yet, it thrives in part because of that fact, not in spite of that fact.
17. The inner-witness of the Holy Spirit testifies to the believer that the Bible is in fact the Word of God.
18. The Bible has never been out of date. It has been edifying and radically transforming its readers for thousands of years.
(More to come .....)
1. The Bible contains hundreds of fulfilled prophecies. These aren’t vague prophecies like Nostradamus. Specific people and places are named. There are over a hundred prophecies that were fulfilled by Jesus Christ hundreds of years after the prophecies were written.
2 .The Bible is a unified whole. It is 66 books, written by about 40 authors, on three continents, in three languages, over a 1,500-year period, by such diverse authors as kings and sheepherders. Yet it is completely one in consistency and its overarching theme of mankind’s creation, fall and redemption.
3. The Bible is packed with unmatched insights and profundity (i.e. answers the big questions of life): What am I?, Where did I come from?, What is my purpose in life?, What has gone wrong with the world?, What is my destiny?, What is the solution to our problems?
4. The historical, scientific and archaeological accuracy of the Bible proves it’s
trustworthiness.
5. Over the centuries the Bible (and its readers!) have been subject to being banned and burned. Every attempt has been made to destroy and/or discredit the Bible. Yet it has been supernaturally preserved!
6. Billions of lives have been enriched and radically changed by the truths found in the Bible.
7. The honesty and bluntness of the Bible writers enhances the credibility of the veracity of what they say.
8. The Bible has never been successfully duplicated.
9. Jesus Christ could not have been a creation of fiction:
Only Jesus Christ exemplifies perfect justice and perfect mercy.... Only Jesus Christ exhibits a majesty and meekness like nobody else in history.... Only Jesus Christ as judge suffers the punishment that the criminal (you and me!) that we deserved.... Jesus Christ is both fully man and fully God... It is only Jesus Christ that man must not only believe in what He said, but must also
believe on who He truly is and what He did for His elect... Only through trusting in Jesus Christ can man be delivered from the penalty, power, and (ultimately) even the presence of sin.
10. We measure time from the date of Jesus’ birth.
11. Christianity is not “works based”, unlike every other religion, philosophy, worldview and self-help program.
12. Jesus Christ is the most revered, influential, controversial, and talked-about person in history.
13. Jesus’ impact on virtually every nation, culture, age-group, socio-economic class ,intellectual level and ethnicity is unmatched in world history.
14. Unlike complicated “philosophies”, even the most simple-minded person can be saved and have joy in Christ. (A nine-year-old can’t have joy in Plato or Kant.)
15. The Bible is the best-selling and the most distributed book of all time. Millions of copies have been given away for free. No book is more quoted or translated than the Bible.
16. The Bible is the most scrutinized book of all time. Yet, it thrives in part because of that fact, not in spite of that fact.
17. The inner-witness of the Holy Spirit testifies to the believer that the Bible is in fact the Word of God.
18. The Bible has never been out of date. It has been edifying and radically transforming its readers for thousands of years.
(More to come .....)
Original Position's comments just reminded me that I was surprised to see you accept my definition of moral/immoral ("immoral behaviour is another way of saying causing unnecessary harm or suffering to another person") as a satisfactory response to your question.
You said
The fact that you didn't find it objectionable was something I found interesting, since that's not how YOU define it, at least when you're in 'apologetics mode'**, which would be immoral==sin.
What I was expecting to hear from you would have been somewhat equivalent of Original Position's pushback to your attempts to answer him. Yet, you didn't even ask why I associated morality with causing unnecessary harm.
Beyond "make an argument" demands, I think it reveals something about you, that you already understand morality as being about causing unnecessary harm, and only when you go into 'apologetics mode' that you switch to a completely different meaning.
Similarly, how you occasionally declare "professing atheists are suppressing the truth" while you are in 'apologetics mode', but then seem to understand that atheists actually don't believe when in 'conversation mode'.
(It's slightly off topic from your line, but do you have any comments on this, Original Position?)
You said
The fact that you didn't find it objectionable was something I found interesting, since that's not how YOU define it, at least when you're in 'apologetics mode'**, which would be immoral==sin.
What I was expecting to hear from you would have been somewhat equivalent of Original Position's pushback to your attempts to answer him. Yet, you didn't even ask why I associated morality with causing unnecessary harm.
Beyond "make an argument" demands, I think it reveals something about you, that you already understand morality as being about causing unnecessary harm, and only when you go into 'apologetics mode' that you switch to a completely different meaning.
Similarly, how you occasionally declare "professing atheists are suppressing the truth" while you are in 'apologetics mode', but then seem to understand that atheists actually don't believe when in 'conversation mode'.
(It's slightly off topic from your line, but do you have any comments on this, Original Position?)
So what is really going on here? Lagtight might think that a conceptual analysis of "morality" would show that it actually has a different meaning than the one you are stipulating, so you are just talking about a different concept. You can't just stipulate that the concept of morality is not doing unnecessary harm. But in that case he will need to do a conceptual analysis of "morality," demonstrating that isn't its meaning. He nowhere does that, only proposing a different and conflicting meaning for the term.
However, I think this is all on the wrong track. I don't think lagtight's claim that atheism implies amorality is based on an analysis of the meaning of moral terms. Rather, I think his view is that materialist metaphysics doesn't ground moral claims in anything real and so it is just a personal choice akin to preferring vanilla to chocolate whether or not to be moral.
The problem here is that this doesn't show that materialism implies amorality. Nothing rests on whether you prefer chocolate or vanilla. But that is not true of all preferences, including for materialists. It is a personal choice whether or not to drink arsenic. But that doesn't mean that drinking arsenic won't kill you. In the same way, under Christianity, it is a personal choice whether or not to obey God, but disobeying God will still see you burn in hell.
Instead, this should be understood as asking whether it is rational to be moral or immoral. Let's assume that your understanding of morality is correct. Does this imply that materialists should not act morally? Lagtight seems to think the answer is here is yes - materialists should just be selfish egoists and ignore moral considerations. So good for you if you decide to be moral, but you have no better reason for being so under materialism than a psychopath does for killing people.
But why? In thinking about rationality, there are two primary questions - do our means fit our ends, and are our ends the right ends to desire? And here lagtight is assuming that under materialism moral considerations do not lead to a better life for the individual, and that individuals should not desire the good of others.
However, neither of these claims are implied by materialism. For instance, group selection in evolution is an example of how individuals can benefit by working to achieve group aims (and various collective action problems in game theory demonstrate the same logic). Furthermore, when we pay attention to how people in the past have talked about what made them as individuals happy and content in life, you'll often find them describe how caring for others is for most people an essential part of the good life. Humans are generally social animals.
Thus, we have good reasons as materialists to think that moral considerations are useful means to achieving the end of living a good life. Thus, there is no implication from materialism to amorality, as lagtight claims.
Why You Can Trust the Bible - Page 1 of 4
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
2 Timothy 3:16-17
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
2 Timothy 3:16-17
Voddie Baucham explains why we can trust the Bible (based on 2 Peter 1:16-21):
"The Bible is a reliable collection of historical documents, written by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses, and they report supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies and they claim that their writings are divine rather than human in origin."
"The Bible is a reliable collection of historical documents, written by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses, and they report supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies and they claim that their writings are divine rather than human in origin."
Also, this is pitiful reasoning and evidence. Here is an ancient book that includes reference to some historical events that happened, and some other people maybe claimed it was inspired later on, so we should believe everything it says, even really implausible claims about miracles. When I read contemporary history books that are much more rigourous, I don't accept this kind of reasoning, but instead take a critical approach. These ancient books much more so.
In his book A Peculiar Glory, John Piper writes, “The whole bible authenticates itself by shining with the glory of the one who inspired it.”
This is from the Westminster Confession of Faith:
“The authority of the Holy Scriptures, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received because it it is the Word of God...our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.”
“The authority of the Holy Scriptures, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received because it it is the Word of God...our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.”
I'm not really sure how to take lagtight's talk of defining "morality." Insofar as he means you are merely stipulating a definition of morality, then it is trivial that your definition is correct. If he is satisfied that by that, then his entire argument that materialism implies amorality fails as your definition of morality is consistent with materialism - the concept of harm doesn't imply anything immaterial.
So what is really going on here? Lagtight might think that a conceptual analysis of "morality" would show that it actually has a different meaning than the one you are stipulating, so you are just talking about a different concept. You can't just stipulate that the concept of morality is not doing unnecessary harm. But in that case he will need to do a conceptual analysis of "morality," demonstrating that isn't its meaning. He nowhere does that, only proposing a different and conflicting meaning for the term.
However, I think this is all on the wrong track. I don't think lagtight's claim that atheism implies amorality is based on an analysis of the meaning of moral terms. Rather, I think his view is that materialist metaphysics doesn't ground moral claims in anything real and so it is just a personal choice akin to preferring vanilla to chocolate whether or not to be moral.
The problem here is that this doesn't show that materialism implies amorality. Nothing rests on whether you prefer chocolate or vanilla. But that is not true of all preferences, including for materialists. It is a personal choice whether or not to drink arsenic. But that doesn't mean that drinking arsenic won't kill you. In the same way, under Christianity, it is a personal choice whether or not to obey God, but disobeying God will still see you burn in hell.
Instead, this should be understood as asking whether it is rational to be moral or immoral. Let's assume that your understanding of morality is correct. Does this imply that materialists should not act morally? Lagtight seems to think the answer is here is yes - materialists should just be selfish egoists and ignore moral considerations. So good for you if you decide to be moral, but you have no better reason for being so under materialism than a psychopath does for killing people.
But why? In thinking about rationality, there are two primary questions - do our means fit our ends, and are our ends the right ends to desire? And here lagtight is assuming that under materialism moral considerations do not lead to a better life for the individual, and that individuals should not desire the good of others.
However, neither of these claims are implied by materialism. For instance, group selection in evolution is an example of how individuals can benefit by working to achieve group aims (and various collective action problems in game theory demonstrate the same logic). Furthermore, when we pay attention to how people in the past have talked about what made them as individuals happy and content in life, you'll often find them describe how caring for others is for most people an essential part of the good life. Humans are generally social animals.
Thus, we have good reasons as materialists to think that moral considerations are useful means to achieving the end of living a good life. Thus, there is no implication from materialism to amorality, as lagtight claims.
So what is really going on here? Lagtight might think that a conceptual analysis of "morality" would show that it actually has a different meaning than the one you are stipulating, so you are just talking about a different concept. You can't just stipulate that the concept of morality is not doing unnecessary harm. But in that case he will need to do a conceptual analysis of "morality," demonstrating that isn't its meaning. He nowhere does that, only proposing a different and conflicting meaning for the term.
However, I think this is all on the wrong track. I don't think lagtight's claim that atheism implies amorality is based on an analysis of the meaning of moral terms. Rather, I think his view is that materialist metaphysics doesn't ground moral claims in anything real and so it is just a personal choice akin to preferring vanilla to chocolate whether or not to be moral.
The problem here is that this doesn't show that materialism implies amorality. Nothing rests on whether you prefer chocolate or vanilla. But that is not true of all preferences, including for materialists. It is a personal choice whether or not to drink arsenic. But that doesn't mean that drinking arsenic won't kill you. In the same way, under Christianity, it is a personal choice whether or not to obey God, but disobeying God will still see you burn in hell.
Instead, this should be understood as asking whether it is rational to be moral or immoral. Let's assume that your understanding of morality is correct. Does this imply that materialists should not act morally? Lagtight seems to think the answer is here is yes - materialists should just be selfish egoists and ignore moral considerations. So good for you if you decide to be moral, but you have no better reason for being so under materialism than a psychopath does for killing people.
But why? In thinking about rationality, there are two primary questions - do our means fit our ends, and are our ends the right ends to desire? And here lagtight is assuming that under materialism moral considerations do not lead to a better life for the individual, and that individuals should not desire the good of others.
However, neither of these claims are implied by materialism. For instance, group selection in evolution is an example of how individuals can benefit by working to achieve group aims (and various collective action problems in game theory demonstrate the same logic). Furthermore, when we pay attention to how people in the past have talked about what made them as individuals happy and content in life, you'll often find them describe how caring for others is for most people an essential part of the good life. Humans are generally social animals.
Thus, we have good reasons as materialists to think that moral considerations are useful means to achieving the end of living a good life. Thus, there is no implication from materialism to amorality, as lagtight claims.
That is why the person who is serious about fulfillment and righteousness focuses on keeping themselves uncovered, in tension, uncomfortable, and insecure. They keep themselves in the dark by voluntarily blinding one eye.
Why You Can Trust the Bible - Page 2 of 4
1. The Bible contains hundreds of fulfilled prophecies. These aren’t vague prophecies like Nostradamus. Specific people and places are named. There are over a hundred prophecies that were fulfilled by Jesus Christ hundreds of years after the prophecies were written.
1. The Bible contains hundreds of fulfilled prophecies. These aren’t vague prophecies like Nostradamus. Specific people and places are named. There are over a hundred prophecies that were fulfilled by Jesus Christ hundreds of years after the prophecies were written.
2 .The Bible is a unified whole. It is 66 books, written by about 40 authors, on three continents, in three languages, over a 1,500-year period, by such diverse authors as kings and sheepherders. Yet it is completely one in consistency and its overarching theme of mankind’s creation, fall and redemption.
3. The Bible is packed with unmatched insights and profundity (i.e. answers the big questions of life): What am I?, Where did I come from?, What is my purpose in life?, What has gone wrong with the world?, What is my destiny?, What is the solution to our problems?
4. The historical, scientific and archaeological accuracy of the Bible proves it’s
trustworthiness.
trustworthiness.
5. Over the centuries the Bible (and its readers!) have been subject to being banned and burned. Every attempt has been made to destroy and/or discredit the Bible. Yet it has been supernaturally preserved!
6. Billions of lives have been enriched and radically changed by the truths found in the Bible.
7. The honesty and bluntness of the Bible writers enhances the credibility of the veracity of what they say.
8. The Bible has never been successfully duplicated.
9. Jesus Christ could not have been a creation of fiction:
Only Jesus Christ exemplifies perfect justice and perfect mercy.... Only Jesus Christ exhibits a majesty and meekness like nobody else in history.... Only Jesus Christ as judge suffers the punishment that the criminal (you and me!) that we deserved.... Jesus Christ is both fully man and fully God... It is only Jesus Christ that man must not only believe in what He said, but must also
believe on who He truly is and what He did for His elect... Only through trusting in Jesus Christ can man be delivered from the penalty, power, and (ultimately) even the presence of sin.
Only Jesus Christ exemplifies perfect justice and perfect mercy.... Only Jesus Christ exhibits a majesty and meekness like nobody else in history.... Only Jesus Christ as judge suffers the punishment that the criminal (you and me!) that we deserved.... Jesus Christ is both fully man and fully God... It is only Jesus Christ that man must not only believe in what He said, but must also
believe on who He truly is and what He did for His elect... Only through trusting in Jesus Christ can man be delivered from the penalty, power, and (ultimately) even the presence of sin.
10. We measure time from the date of Jesus’ birth.
11. Christianity is not “works based”, unlike every other religion, philosophy, worldview and self-help program.
12. Jesus Christ is the most revered, influential, controversial, and talked-about person in history.
it seems possible that Confucius or Buddha might be more so.
13. Jesus’ impact on virtually every nation, culture, age-group, socio-economic class ,intellectual level and ethnicity is unmatched in world history.
14. Unlike complicated “philosophies”, even the most simple-minded person can be saved and have joy in Christ. (A nine-year-old can’t have joy in Plato or Kant.)
15. The Bible is the best-selling and the most distributed book of all time. Millions of copies have been given away for free. No book is more quoted or translated than the Bible.
16. The Bible is the most scrutinized book of all time. Yet, it thrives in part because of that fact, not in spite of that fact.
17. The inner-witness of the Holy Spirit testifies to the believer that the Bible is in fact the Word of God.
18. The Bible has never been out of date. It has been edifying and radically transforming its readers for thousands of years.
So now that we went through that Gish Gallop, please present a valid argument for P1.
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE