Atheism’s problem of warrant (–> being, Logic and First Principles, No. 23)

_{kairosfocus

June 30, 2019

Atheism, Defending our Civilization, Logic and Reason, Naturalism, Philosophy, Selective Hyperskepticism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Atheism seems to be on the table these days here at UD and a few points need clarification.

First up, what is Atheism?

The usual dictionaries are consistent:

atheism
n. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
[French athéisme, from athée, atheist, from Greek atheos, godless : a-, without; see a-1 + theos, god; see dh?s- in Indo-European roots.]

American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
atheism
n (Philosophy) rejection of belief in God or gods
[C16: from French athéisme, from Greek atheos godless, from a-1 + theos god]
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014
a•the•ism
n. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
[1580–90]
Random House Kernerman Webster’s College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.
atheism
the absolute denial of the existence of God or any other gods.
-Ologies & -Isms. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

However, from at least the 1880’s, there has been a claim by some advocates of the same, that what is meant is someone without faith in God.

(This tends to serve the rhetorical purpose of claiming that nothing is asserted and it can be taken as default, demanding that theists provide “compelling” warrant for faith in God. Where, often, this then leads to selectively hyperskeptical dismissals, sometimes to the degree of claiming that “there is no evidence” that supports the existence of God. [Of course, the no evidence gambit should usually be taken as implying ” there is no evidence [that I am willing to acknowledge].” Through that loophole, as fair comment, a lot of clearly question-beggingly closed minded hyperskepticism can be driven.)

There are many varieties of atheists, including idealistic ones that reject the reality of matter. However at this juncture in our civilisation, the relevant form is evolutionary materialistic, often associated with the scientism that holds that big-S Science effectively monopolises credible knowledge. (Never mind that such a view is an epistemological [thus philosophical and self-refuting] view. Evolutionary materialism is also self-refuting by way of undermining the credibility of mind.)

A key take-home point is that atheism is not an isolated view or belief, it is part of a wider worldview, where every worldview needs to be responsible before the bar of comparative difficulties: factual adequacy, coherence, balanced explanatory power. Likewise, given the tendency of modern atheism to dress up in a lab coat, we must also reckon with fellow travellers who do not explicitly avow atheism but clearly enable it.

So, already, we can see that atheism is best understood as disbelief — NB, Dicts: “refusal or reluctance to believe”/ “the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true” — in the existence of God, claimed or implied to be a well warranted view; not merely having doubts about God’s existence or thinking one does not know enough to hold a strong opinion. It inevitably exists as a part of a broader philosophical scheme, a worldview, and will imply therefore a cultural agenda.

(I add: Note by contrast, AmHD on agnosticism: “The belief that the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities cannot be known with certainty. “ Where, of course, certainty comes in various degrees, starting with moral certainty, and where knowledge, as commonly used often speaks to credibly warranted beliefs taken as true but not typically held as utterly certain beyond any possibility of error or incompleteness. We not only know that 2 + 3 = 5, but we claim knowledge of less than utterly certain facts and theories. For instance, in the mid 2000’s, the previous understanding and “fact” that Pluto was the 9th Planet of our solar system was revised through redefining Pluto as a dwarf planet.)

It will be further helpful (given objections that suggest inapt, distorted caricature) to excerpt from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, as appears at comment 11:

“Atheism” is typically defined in terms of “theism”. Theism, in turn, is best understood as a proposition—something that is either true or false. It is often defined as “the belief that God exists”, but here “belief” means “something believed”. It refers to the propositional content of belief, not to the attitude or psychological state of believing. This is why it makes sense to say that theism is true or false and to argue for or against theism. If, however, “atheism” is defined in terms of theism and theism is the proposition that God exists and not the psychological condition of believing that there is a God, then it follows that atheism is not the absence of the psychological condition of believing that God exists (more on this below). The “a-” in “atheism” must be understood as negation instead of absence, as “not” instead of “without”. Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods).
This definition has the added virtue of making atheism a direct answer to one of the most important metaphysical questions in philosophy of religion, namely, “Is there a God?” There are only two possible direct answers to this question: “yes”, which is theism, and “no”, which is atheism. Answers like “I don’t know”, “no one knows”, “I don’t care”, “an affirmative answer has never been established”, or “the question is meaningless” are not direct answers to this question.
While identifying atheism with the metaphysical claim that there is no God (or that there are no gods) is particularly useful for doing philosophy, it is important to recognize that the term “atheism” is polysemous—i.e., it has more than one related meaning—even within philosophy. For example, many writers at least implicitly identify atheism with a positive metaphysical theory like naturalism or even materialism. Given this sense of the word, the meaning of “atheism” is not straightforwardly derived from the meaning of “theism”. . . . .
[A] few philosophers and quite a few non-philosophers claim that “atheism” shouldn’t be defined as a proposition at all, even if theism is a proposition. Instead, “atheism” should be defined as a psychological state: the state of not believing in the existence of God (or gods). This view was famously proposed by the philosopher Antony Flew and arguably played a role in his (1972) defense of an alleged presumption of “atheism”. The editors of the Oxford Handbook of Atheism (Bullivant & Ruse 2013) also favor this definition and one of them, Stephen Bullivant (2013), defends it on grounds of scholarly utility. His argument is that this definition can best serve as an umbrella term for a wide variety of positions that have been identified with atheism. Scholars can then use adjectives like “strong” and “weak” to develop a taxonomy that differentiates various specific atheisms. Unfortunately, this argument overlooks the fact that, if atheism is defined as a psychological state, then no proposition can count as a form of atheism because a proposition is not a psychological state. This undermines his argument in defense of Flew’s definition; for it implies that what he calls “strong atheism”—the proposition (or belief in the sense of “something believed”) that there is no God—is not really a variety of atheism at all. In short, his proposed “umbrella” term leaves strong atheism out in the rain. [–> which makes little sense]
Although Flew’s definition of “atheism” [thus] fails as an umbrella term, it is certainly a legitimate definition in the sense that it reports how a significant number of people use the term. Again, there is more than one “correct” definition of “atheism”. The issue for philosophy is which definition is the most useful for scholarly or, more narrowly, philosophical purposes.

We can go further.

For, we all have intellectual duties of care in general and as regards worldviews and linked cultural agendas. There are particular, inescapable associated duties to truth, right reason, prudence (including warrant), sound conscience, fairness, justice, etc. To see why such are inescapable, consider the consequences of a widespread rejection of such duties: ruinous chaos that would undermine rationality itself. Reason is morally governed.

Also, given that post Godel, not even sufficiently complex mathematical systems are subject to proof beyond doubt, that one cannot provide absolute demonstration is not at all the same as that one does not have adequate warrant to hold responsible certainty about key points of knowledge. In this context, the issue is reasonable, responsible faith in a credible worldview. Where, the claim one has “absence of belief in” God is often patently evasive. Why such a strange lack?

Could it be that one knows enough to realise that trying to disprove the reality of God is an almost impossible task, once there is no demonstrable incoherence in the theistic concept of God? (Where, we note, that the old attempt to use the problem of evil to lead to such a contradiction has failed; a failure that is particularly evident, post-Plantinga.)

Now, such is significant, especially given point 7 from the recently cited six-country study on atheists:

7. Also perhaps challenging common suppositions: with
only a few exceptions, atheists and agnostics endorse
the realities of objective moral values, human dignity and
attendant rights, and the ‘deep value’ of nature, at similar
rates to the general populations in their countries. (3.1)

A key to this, is the already mentioned point that our mental lives are inescapably under moral government, through undeniably known duties to “truth, right reason, prudence (including warrant), sound conscience, fairness, justice, etc.” The attempt to deny such rapidly undercuts rational discussion and the credibility of thought and communication, much as is implicit in what would happen were lying to be the norm. So, one who rejects the objectivity of such duties discredits himself.

However, it is also possible to hold an inconsistency; accepting objective morality but placing it in a framework that undermines it.

A start-point is to see that our rationality is morally governed through said duties. This means, our life of reason operates on both sides of the IS-OUGHT gap, requiring that it be bridged. That can only be done in the root of reality, on pain of ungrounded ought. And no, indoctrination, socialisation and even conscience do not ground ought. We need that the root of reality is inherently and essentially good and wise, a serious bill to fill.

You may dispute this (so, as a phil exercise, provide an alternative _____ and justify it _____ ), but it is easy to show that after many centuries of debates there is just one serious candidate: the inherently good, utterly wise creator God, a necessary and maximally great being. One, worthy of loyalty and of the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good that accords with our evident nature. This is the heart of ethical theism.

There is another angle. How much of reality do we know, how much of what is knowable do we actually hold, and how much of that is certain beyond future correction? The ratio is obviously trending infinitesimal; even dismissing Boltzmann brain scenarios, Matrix worlds and Plato’s cave worlds etc.

So, what if what is required to know God is, is beyond what one happens to know, or what one is willing to acknowledge?

In short, the positive affirmation that there is no God is arguably an act of intellectual irresponsibility, given our inability to show that being God is incoherent and our effectively infinitesimal grasp of what is knowable.

Let me add a table, as a reminder on logic of being:

Indeed, as it is easy to see that reality has a necessary being root (something of independent existence that therefore has neither beginning nor end), given that traversal of the transfinite in finite temporal-causal steps is a supertask and given that were there ever utter non-being, as such has no causal powers that would forever obtain, if a world now is, something thus always was. Thus, too, the question is: what that necessary being is, and that is further shaped by our being under moral government starting with our rationality.

Where also, a serious candidate to be a necessary being either is, or is impossible of being as a square circle is impossible of being. Where, a necessary being is a world-framework entity: a component of what is necessary for there to be any world. God as historically understood through theism is clearly such a serious candidate (if you doubt, kindly justify: ____ ), and so the one who poses as knowing that God is not implies having warrant to hold God impossible of being. Where, given the centrality of root of reality, ducking the question is clearly irresponsible.

In short, asserting or implying atheism requires a serious — and unmet — burden of warrant. END

Comments

F/N: Perhaps, then, we can hear Cicero with fresh ears? I clip:
—Marcus [in de Legibus, introductory remarks,. C1 BC]: . . . the subject of our present discussion . . . comprehends the universal principles of equity and law. In such a discussion therefore on the great moral law of nature, the practice of the civil law can occupy but an insignificant and subordinate station. For according to our idea, we shall have to explain the true nature of moral justice, which is congenial and correspondent [36]with the true nature of man.
[--> Note, how justice and our built in nature as a morally governed class of creatures are highlighted; thus framing the natural law frame: recognising built-in law that we do not create nor can we repeal, which then frames a sound understanding of justice. Without such an anchor, law inevitably reduces to the sort of ruthless, nihilistic might- and- manipulation- make- "right,"- "truth,"- "knowledge,"- "law"- and- "justice"- etc power struggle and chaos Plato warned against in The Laws Bk X.]
We shall have to examine those principles of legislation by which all political states should be governed. And last of all, shall we have to speak of those laws and customs which are framed for the use and convenience of particular peoples, which regulate the civic and municipal affairs of the citizens, and which are known by the title of civil laws. Quintus [his real-life brother]. —You take a noble view of the subject, my brother, and go to the fountain–head of moral truth, in order to throw light on the whole science of jurisprudence: while those who confine their legal studies to the civil law too often grow less familiar with the arts of justice than with those of litigation. Marcus. —Your observation, my Quintus, is not quite correct. It is not so much the science of law that produces litigation, as the ignorance of it, (potius ignoratio juris litigiosa est quam scientia) . . . . With respect to the true principle of justice, many learned men have maintained that it springs from Law. I hardly know if their opinion be not correct, at least, according to their own definition; for “Law (say they) is the highest reason, implanted in nature, which prescribes those things which ought to be done, and forbids the contrary.” This, they think, is apparent from the converse of the proposition; because this same reason, when it [37]is confirmed and established in men’s minds, is the law of all their actions. They therefore conceive that the voice of conscience is a law, that moral prudence is a law, whose operation is to urge us to good actions, and restrain us from evil ones. They think, too, that the Greek name for law (NOMOS), which is derived from NEMO, to distribute, implies the very nature of the thing, that is, to give every man his due. [--> this implies a definition of justice as the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities] For my part, I imagine that the moral essence of law is better expressed by its Latin name, (lex), which conveys the idea of selection or discrimination. According to the Greeks, therefore, the name of law implies an equitable distribution of goods: according to the Romans, an equitable discrimination between good and evil. The true definition of law should, however, include both these characteristics. And this being granted as an almost self–evident proposition, the origin of justice is to be sought in the divine law of eternal and immutable morality. This indeed is the true energy of nature, the very soul and essence of wisdom, the test of virtue and vice.
And, perhaps Blackstone, too? Again:
Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769) Sir William Blackstone INTRODUCTION, SECTION 2 Of the Nature of Laws in General . . . [L]aws, in their more confined sense, and in which it is our present business to consider them, denote the rules, not of action in general, but of human action or conduct: that is, the precepts by which man, the noblest of all sublunary beings, a creature endowed with both reason and freewill, is commanded to make use of those faculties in the general regulation of his behavior. Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his creator, for he is entirely a dependent being [--> we are contingent creatures under a Creator who as Maximally Great, necessary being, has aseity]. A being, independent of any other, has no rule to pursue, but such as he prescribes to himself [--> notice, aseity, and the implied folly of a contingent creature presuming that responsible rational freedom gives him utter, arbitrary autonomy of action]; but a state of dependence will inevitably oblige the inferior to take the will of him, on whom he depends, as the rule of his conduct: not indeed in every particular, but in all those points wherein his dependence consists. This principle therefore has more or less extent and effect, in proportion as the superiority of the one and the dependence of the other is greater or less, absolute or limited. And consequently, as man depends absolutely upon his maker for every thing, it is necessary that he should in all points conform to his maker’s will.
[--> hence, the significance of seeing from our inescapably being under moral government, that we operate on both sides of the IS-OUGHT gap. So, it must be bridged, which is only feasible in the root of reality, on pain of Hume's ungrounded ought: reasoning is-is then poof, ought from nowhere. Coherence demands fusion, only feasible in the world-root source. This requires a necessary being root of reality adequate to support ought. After centuries of vexed debate, there remains just one serious candidate: the inherently good (and so, utterly wise and soundly acting) creator God, a necessary and maximally great being. Thus, one who is framework to any world existing, indeed, its source. Further, one who is worthy of loyalty and of the responsible, reasonable service of doing the good that accords with our evident nature.
This will of his maker is called the law of nature. For as God, when he created matter, and endued it with a principle of mobility, established certain rules for the perpetual direction of that motion; so, when he created man, and endued him with freewill to conduct himself in all parts of life, he laid down certain immutable laws of human nature, whereby that freewill is in some degree regulated and restrained, and gave him also the faculty of reason to discover the purport of those laws. Considering the creator only as a being of infinite power, he was able unquestionably to have prescribed whatever laws he pleased to his creature, man, however unjust or severe. [--> Blackstone, here, errs somewhat in this suggestion, as he does not adequately consider God's goodness and the moral coherence of his character: God as inherently good will do no evil] But as be is also a being of infinite wisdom [--> notice, utterly wise so also inherently good], he has laid down only such laws as were founded in those relations of justice, that existed in the nature of things antecedent to any positive precept. These are the eternal, immutable laws of good and evil, to which the creator himself in all his dispensations conforms; and which he has enabled human reason to discover, so far as they are necessary for the conduct of human actions. Such among others are these principles: that we should live honestly, should hurt nobody, and should render to every one his due; to which three general precepts Justinian1 has reduced the whole doctrine of law. [--> In introductory remarks in the built-in textbook, Institutes, for Corpus Juris Civilis, which in turn echoes Aristotle in the Nicomachean Ethics, and of course Paul, Jesus and Moses on the law of neighbour love.] But if the discovery of these first principles of the law of nature depended only upon the due exertion of right reason [--> notice, the implicit duty to reason aright starting with its first principles], and could not otherwise be obtained than by a chain of metaphysical disquisitions, mankind would have wanted some inducement to have quickened their inquiries, and the greater part of the world would have rested content in mental indolence, and ignorance its inseparable companion. As therefore the creator is a being, not only of infinite power, and wisdom, but also of infinite goodness [--> he now draws this out], he has been pleased so to contrive the constitution and frame of humanity, that we should want no other prompter to inquire after and pursue the rule of right, but only our own self-love, that universal principle of action.[--> which is the implicit premise in love neighbour as self] For he has so intimately connected, so inseparably interwoven the laws of eternal justice with the happiness of each individual, that the latter cannot be attained but by observing the former; and, if the former be punctually obeyed, it cannot but induce the latter. In consequence of which mutual connection of justice and human felicity, he has not perplexed the law of nature with a multitude of abstracted rules and precepts, referring merely to the fitness or unfitness of things, as some have vainly surmised; but has graciously reduced the rule of obedience to this one paternal precept, “that man should pursue his own true and substantial happiness.”
[--> which by definition cannot but be in a community of like creatures, leading to mutual obligations of neighbour-love; note the direct echo in the US DOI, July 4, 1776. However, the lack of balance is a key weak point. By way of rebalancing, for instance, justice is best understood as the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities in the community of the morally governed. Which, in turn, is credibly rooted in the inherently good, utterly wise Creator..]
This is the foundation of what we call ethics, or natural law. For the several articles into which it is branched in our systems, amount to no more than demonstrating, that this or that action tends to man’s real happiness, and therefore very justly concluding that the performance of it is a part of the law of nature; or, on the other hand, that this or that action is destructive of man’s real happiness, and therefore that the law of nature forbids it. This law of nature, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other-It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times; no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this: and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original. But in order to apply this to the particular exigencies of each individual, it is still necessary to have recourse to reason; whose office it is to discover, as was before observed, what the law of nature directs in every circumstance of life: by considering, what method will tend the most effectually to our own substantial happiness.
KFkairosfocus_{July 19, 2019
July
07
Jul
19
19
2019
03:54 AM
3
03
54
AM
PDT}

F/N: Continuing, from the 101, let us now build a better framework for morality and lawfulness than is now being imposed on us:
We may now carry this forward, to briefly address the vexed problem of the fairly common attempt to reduce morality to subjective or otherwise relative perceptions imposed by persuasion or force. For this, it is perhaps best to start with a very concrete case, one which is unfortunately not just theoretical: ASSERTION: it is self-evidently wrong, bad and evil to kidnap, torture, sexually violate and murder a young child. Likewise, by corollary: if we come across such a case in progress, it is our duty to try to intervene to save the child from such a monster. Almost all people will agree that such a case is horrible, and to be deplored. So also, they will agree that a duty of rescue obtains, or at least succor for someone left half dead. Thus, we see the significance of the Good Samaritan as a paradigm of neighbourliness across racial, religious, political and other dividing-lines or even outright enmity: Luke 10:25 And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How do you read it?” 27 And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” 28 And he said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.” 29 But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” 30 Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead. 31 Now by chance a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. 32 So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion. 34 He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 And the next day he took out two denarii[c] and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’ 36 Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” 37 He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” And Jesus said to him, “You go, and do likewise.” [ESV] And, normally responsive people will at least grudgingly respect the following summary of such core, conscience attested morality from the pen of Paul: Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them . . . . Rom 13:8 Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong [NIV, "harm"] to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. [ESV] Where, John Locke, in grounding modern liberty and what would become democratic self-government of a free people premised on upholding the civil peace of justice, in Ch 2 Sec. 5 of his second treatise on civil Government [c. 1690] cites "the judicious [Anglican canon, Richard] Hooker" from his classic Ecclesiastical Polity of 1594 on, as he explains how the principles of neighbour-love are inscribed in our hearts, becoming evident to the eye of common good sense and reasonableness: . . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8 and alluding to Justinian's synthesis of Roman Law in Corpus Juris Civilis that also brings these same thoughts to bear:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [Eccl. Polity,preface, Bk I, "ch." 8, p.80, cf. here. Emphasis added.] We may elaborate on Paul, Locke, Hooker and Aristotle, laying out several manifestly evident and historically widely acknowledged core moral principles; for which the attempted denial is instantly and patently absurd for most people -- that is, they are arguably self-evident (thus, warranted and objective) moral truths; not just optional opinions. So also, it is not only possible to (a) be in demonstrable moral error, but also (b) there is hope that such moral errors can be corrected by appealing to manifestly sound core principles of the natural moral law.
So, we may pull the threads together:
1] The first self evident moral truth is that we are inescapably under the government of ought. (This is manifest in even an objector's implication in the questions, challenges and arguments that s/he would advance, that we are in the wrong and there is something to be avoided about that. That is, even the objector inadvertently implies that we OUGHT to do, think, aim for and say the right. Not even the hyperskeptical objector can escape this truth. Patent absurdity on attempted denial.) 2] Second self evident truth, we discern that some things are right and others are wrong by a compass-sense we term conscience which guides our thought. (Again, objectors depend on a sense of guilt/ urgency to be right not wrong on our part to give their points persuasive force. See what would be undermined should conscience be deadened or dismissed universally? Sawing off the branch on which we all must sit.) 3] Third, were this sense of conscience and linked sense that we can make responsibly free, rational decisions to be a delusion, we would at once descend into a status of grand delusion in which there is no good ground for confidence in our self-understanding. (That is, we look at an infinite regress of Plato’s cave worlds: once such a principle of grand global delusion is injected, there is no firewall so the perception of level one delusion is subject to the same issue, and this level two perception too, ad infinitum; landing in patent absurdity.) 4] Fourth, we are objectively under obligation of OUGHT. That is, despite any particular person’s (or group’s or august council’s or majority’s) wishes or claims to the contrary, such obligation credibly holds to moral certainty. That is, it would be irresponsible, foolish and unwise for us to act and try to live otherwise. 5] Fifth, this cumulative framework of moral government under OUGHT is the basis for the manifest core principles of the natural moral law under which we find ourselves obligated to the right the good, the true etc. Where also, patently, we struggle to live up to what we acknowledge or imply we ought to do. 6] Sixth, this means we live in a world in which being under core, generally understood principles of natural moral law is coherent and factually adequate, thus calling for a world-understanding in which OUGHT is properly grounded at root level. (Thus worldviews that can soundly meet this test are the only truly viable ones. If a worldview does not have in it a world-root level IS that can simultaneously ground OUGHT -- so that IS and OUGHT are inextricably fused at that level, it fails decisively.*) 7] Seventh, in light of the above, even the weakest and most voiceless of us thus has a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of fulfillment of one’s sense of what s/he ought to be (“happiness”). This includes the young child, the unborn and more. (We see here the concept that rights are binding moral expectations of others to provide respect in regards to us because of our inherent status as human beings, members of the community of valuable neighbours. Where also who is my neighbour was forever answered by the parable of the Good Samaritan. Likewise, there can be no right to demand of or compel my neighbour that s/he upholds me and enables me in the wrong — including under false colour of law through lawfare; usurping the sword of justice to impose a ruthless policy agenda in fundamental breach of that civil peace which must ever pivot on manifest justice. To justly claim a right, one must first be in the right.) 8] Eighth, like unto the seventh, such may only be circumscribed or limited for good cause. Such as, reciprocal obligation to cherish and not harm neighbour of equal, equally valuable nature in community and in the wider world of the common brotherhood of humanity. 9] Ninth, this is the context in which it becomes self evidently wrong, wicked and evil to kidnap, sexually torture and murder a young child or the like as concrete cases in point that show that might and/or manipulation do not make ‘right,’ ‘truth,’ ‘worth,’ ‘justice,’ ‘fairness,’ ‘law’ etc. That is, anything that expresses or implies the nihilist’s credo is morally absurd. 10] Tenth, this entails that in civil society with government, justice is a principal task of legitimate government. In short, nihilistic will to power untempered by the primacy of justice is its own refutation in any type of state. Where, justice is the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities. (In Aristotle's terms as cited by Hooker: "because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like .") Thus also, 11] Eleventh, that government is and ought to be subject to audit, reformation and if necessary replacement should it fail sufficiently badly and incorrigibly. (NB: This is a requisite of accountability for justice, and the suggestion or implication of some views across time, that government can reasonably be unaccountable to the governed, is its own refutation, reflecting -- again -- nihilistic will to power; which is automatically absurd. This truth involves the issue that finite, fallible, morally struggling men acting as civil authorities in the face of changing times and situations as well as in the face of the tendency of power to corrupt, need to be open to remonstrance and reformation -- or if they become resistant to reasonable appeal, there must be effective means of replacement. Hence, the principle that the general election is an insitutionalised regular solemn assembly of the people for audit and reform or if needs be replacement of government gone bad. But this is by no means an endorsement of the notion that a manipulated mob bent on a march of folly has a right to do as it pleases.) 12] Twelfth, the attempt to deny or dismiss such a general framework of moral governance invariably lands in shipwreck of incoherence and absurdity. As, has been seen in outline. But that does not mean that the attempt is not going to be made, so there is a mutual obligation of frank and fair correction and restraint of evil. _________________ * F/N: After centuries of debates and assessment of alternatives per comparative difficulties, there is in fact just one serious candidate to be such a grounding IS: the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable responsible service of doing the good in accord with our manifestly evident nature. (And instantly, such generic ethical theism answers also to the accusation oh this is “religion”; that term being used as a dirty word — no, this is philosophy. If you doubt this, simply put forth a different candidate that meets the required criteria and passes the comparative difficulties test: _________ . Likewise, an inherently good, maximally great being will not be arbitrary or deceitful etc, that is why such is fully worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good in accord with our manifestly evident nature. As a serious candidate necessary being, such would be eternal and embedded in the frame for a world to exist at all. Thus such a candidate is either impossible as a square circle is impossible due to mutual ruin of core characteristics, or else it is actual. For simple instance no world is possible without two-ness in it, a necessary basis for distinct identity inter alia. F/N2: Likewise, as Ben Mines summarises from Leibniz, maximal goodness, wisdom and power are arguably mutually, inextricably entangled once we understand/accept that the good implies an evident proper end or purpose: Leibniz has given an argument to show that omniscience and moral perfection [–> also, omnipotence] are mutually inclusive: all freely willed action strives towards some goal; all goals are the pursuit of some good entertained by the agent; [ –> real or imagined?] the scope and quality of entertainable goods is dependent on knowledge; the maximisation of knowledge perfects an agent’s judgment of the good. An evil being therefore lacks perfect knowledge; and lacking perfect knowledge, is not omniscient; and lacking omniscience, cannot be omnipotent since there will be some actions it lacks the knowledge to perform. The proposition, It is possible that a maximally great but evil being exists is therefore broadly incoherent. A being cannot be both evil and maximally great. But, widespread or even general acknowledgement of many or most of the above as more or less useful rules of conduct is not the same as to further acknowledge that the sort of wrong we are contemplating is bindingly, objectively, universally something that OUGHT not to be done. And indeed, many will boldly assert today that it cannot be proved that it is absurd to reject the notion that core moral principles are objective and universally binding. Indeed an actual argument made is oh, how can you PROVE that such a list of truths is coherent? (My reply was, after several rounds: "truths must all be so together, a key point of a coherent world: on distinct identity the triple first principles obtain and so no x is both A and not-A, and so too no two truths x and y can be such that y = NOT-x. In this context, each of the 12 being in turn directly credibly true on grounds of patent absurdities on attempted denial, they are immediately credibly coherent. Next, it so happens that the principles are in fact linked together in a chain so they are mutually supportive and relevant, in fact framing the basis for moral principles in governance." The onward question was absolute certainty regarding coherence, to which I responded that not even Mathematics -- the logical study of structure and quantity -- post Godel is absolutely certain, and that the relevant degree of certainty is moral, where I would be confidently willing to cast the weight of my soul on the above, and would be prepared to bet the future of civilisation on them. [Indeed, whatever moral view we take, we are casting the weight of our souls and the future of civilisation on it. The ethical component of our worldviews is awesomely momentous.]) So in the view of too many today, we are left to the feelings of revulsion and the community consensus backed up by police and courts on this. Not so. Compare a fish, that we lure to bite on a hook, then land, kill and eat for lunch without compunction. And even for those who object, they will do so by extension of the protective sense we have about say the young child -- not the other way around. But, unless there is a material difference between a young child and a fish, that sense of wrong is frankly delusional, it is just a disguised preference, one that we are simply willing to back up with force. So, already, once we let radical relativism and subjectivism loose, we are looking at the absurdity and chaos of the nihilist abyss, might (and manipulation) makes for 'right.' Oops. At the pivot of the skeptical objections to objective moral truth, notwithstanding persistent reduction to absurdity, is the pose that since we may err and since famously there are disagreements on morality, we can reduce moral feelings to subjective perceptions tastes and preferences, dismissing any and all claims of objectivity much less self evidence. So, the objector triumphantly announces: there is an unbridgeable IS-OUGHT gap, game over. Not so fast, as there is no better reason to imagine that we live in a moral Plato’s Cave world, than that we live in a physical or intellectual Plato’s Cave world. That is, we consider the imagined world of Plato where the denizens, having been imprisoned from childhood, all imagine that the shadow shows portrayed for their benefit are reality. Until, one is loosed, sees the apparatus of manipulation, then is led outside and learns of the reality that is there to be discovered. Then he tries to rescue his fellows, only to be ridiculed and attacked . . . . Now, the skeptical question is, do we live in such a delusional world (maybe in another form such as the brains in vats or the Matrix's pods . . . ), and can we reliably tell the difference? The best answer to such is, that such a scenario implies general delusion and the general un-trustworthiness of our senses and reasoning powers. So, it undercuts itself in a turtles all the way down chain of possible delusions -- an infinite regress of Plato's cave delusions. Common good sense then tells us that the skeptic has caught himself up in his own web, his argument is self referentially incoherent.
KFkairosfocus_{July 19, 2019
July
07
Jul
19
19
2019
02:39 AM
2
02
39
AM
PDT}

F/N: Let us also clip (from the same 101) a skeletal summary of Plantinga's argument in successful reply to the problem of evils. This reply in its substantial, book length form, is a major part of the resurgence of theism in Philosophy of Religion as a discipline and it is why the former riding-horse standard objection to theism has become something of the margins:
Plantinga's free-will defense, in a skeletal form, allows us to effectively address the problem. For, it is claimed that the following set of theistic beliefs embed an unresolvable contradiction: 1. God exists 2. God is omnipotent – all powerful 3. God is omniscient – all-knowing 4. God is omni-benevolent – all-good 5. God created the world 6. The world contains evil To do so, there is an implicit claim that, (2a) if he exists, God is omnipotent and so capable of -- but obviously does not eliminate -- evil. So, at least one of 2 – 5 should be surrendered. But all of these claims are central to the notion of God, so it is held that the problem is actually 1. Therefore, NOT-1: God does not exist. However, it has been pointed out by Plantinga and others that: 1: 2a is not consistent with what theists actually believe: if the elimination of some evil would lead to a worse evil, or prevent the emergence of a greater good, then God might have a good reason to permit some evil in the cosmos. 2: Specifically, what if “many evils result from human free will or from the fact that our universe operates under natural laws or from the fact that humans exist in a setting that fosters soul-making . . . [and that such a world] contains more good than a world that does not” ? 3: In this case, Theists propose that 2a should be revised: 2b: “A good, omnipotent God will eliminate evil as far as he can without either losing a greater good or bringing about a greater evil.” But, once this is done, the alleged contradiction collapses. 4: Further, Alvin Plantinga – through his free will defense -- was able to show that the theistic set is actually consistent. He did this by augmenting the set with a further proposition that is logically possible (as opposed to seeming plausible to one who may be committed to another worldview) and which makes the consistency clear. 5: That proposition, skeletally, is 5a: “God created a world (potentially) containing evil; and has a good reason for doing so.” Propositions 1, 2b, 3, 4, and 5a are plainly consistent, and entail 6. 6: The essence of that defense is: “A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures . . . God can create free creatures, but he can’t cause or determine them to do only what is right. For . . . then they aren’t significantly free after all . . . He could only have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good.” [NB: This assumes that moral good reflects the power of choice: if we are merely robots carrying out programs, then we cannot actually love, be truthful, etc.] [From: Clark, Kelley James. Return to Reason. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994), pp. 69 – 70, citing Plantinga, God, Freedom and Evil, (Eerdmans, 1974), p. 30.] 7: Nor is the possible world known as heaven a good counter-example. For, heaven would exist as a world in which the results of choices made to live by the truth in love across a lifetime have culminated in their eternal reward. This we may see from an argument made by the apostle Paul: Rom 2:6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.” 78 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. [NIV] 8: Anticipating the onward response that in at least some possible worlds, there are free creatures, all of whom freely do what is right, Plantinga asserts a further possibility: trans-world depravity. That is, in all worlds God could create in which a certain person, say KF, exists; then that person would have freely gone wrong at least once. And, what if it is further possible that this holds for every class of created, morally capable being? (Then, there would be no possible worlds in which moral good is possible but in which moral evil would not in fact occur. So the benefit of moral good would entail that the world would contain transworld depraved creatures.) 9: Moreover, Plantinga proposes that there is a possible state of affairs in which God and natural evil can exist. For instance, if all natural evils are the result of the actions of significantly free creatures such as Satan and his minions, then since it is logically possible that God could not have created a world with a greater balance of good over evil if it did not contain such creatures, God and natural evil are compatible. 10: At this point, albeit grudgingly, leading atheologians (Such as Mackie and Williams) concede that the deductive form of the problem of evil stands overturned. Thus, a new question is put on the table. 11: It is: But what if the world seems to contain too much evil, and evil that is apparently pointless, i.e. gratuitous? 12: First, the greater good “absorbs” at least some of the evils. To this, the Christian Theist further responds that there are goods in the world that are left out of the account so far; especially, that the fall of mankind led to the greatest good of all: that God loved the world and gave his Son, setting in motion the programme of redemption as a supreme good that absorbs all evils. That is, it is rational for a Christian to believe there are no un-absorbed evils, even though the a-theologian may beg to differ with the Christian’s beliefs. 13: However, it should be noted that there is an existential or pastoral form of the problem of evil (as we saw above): where the overwhelming force of evil and pain brings us to doubt God. To that, no mere rational argument will suffice; for it is a life-challenge we face, as did Job. And, as a perusal of Job 23:1 – 7, 38:1 – 7, 40:1 – 8, 42:1 – 6, God may be more interested in exposing our underlying motives and calling for willingness to trust him even where we cannot trace him, than in satisfying our queries and rebutting our pained accusations. That is, it is at least possible that God is primarily in the business of soul-making. Where then does the problem of evil stand today? On balance, it is rational to believe that God exists, but obviously there are many deep, even painful questions to which we have no answers. And, those who choose to believe in God will have a radically different evaluation of evil than those who reject him.
Further food for thought. KFkairosfocus_{July 19, 2019
July
07
Jul
19
19
2019
02:31 AM
2
02
31
AM
PDT}

F/N: Let us note Dembski in his remarks on Boethius, in first answer to the (now simply rhetorical, post Plantinga) posing of evils as undermining the reality of God. I clip my 101:
Leading design theorist and philosopher-theologian William Dembski helps us put the intellectual forms of the problem of evil in context, by citing the sixth century Christian philosopher, Boethius:
In his Consolation of Philosophy, Boethius states the following paradox: “If God exists, whence evil? But whence good, if God does not exist?” Boethius contrasts the problem that evil poses for theism with the problem that good poses for atheism. The problem of good does not receive nearly as much attention as the problem evil, but it is the more basic problem. That’s because evil always presupposes a good that has been subverted. All our words for evil make this plain: the New Testament word for sin (Greek hamartia) presupposes a target that’s been missed; deviation presupposes a way (Latin via) from which we’ve departed; injustice presupposes justice; etc. So let’s ask, who’s got the worse problem, the theist or the atheist? Start with the theist. God is the source of all being and purpose. Given God’s existence, what sense does it make to deny God’s goodness? None . . . . The problem of evil still confronts theists, though not as a logical or philosophical problem, but instead as a psychological and existential one [as was addressed above] . . . . The problem of good as it faces the atheist is this: nature, which is nuts-and-bolts reality for the atheist, has no values and thus can offer no grounding for good and evil. As nineteenth century freethinker Robert Green Ingersoll used to say, “In nature there are neither rewards nor punishments. There are consequences.” More recently, Richard Dawkins made the same point: “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.” ["Prepared Remarks for the Dembski-Hitchens Debate," Uncommon Descent Blog, Nov 22, 2010]
In short, when we come to core worldview problems, we should address the comparative difficulties of the main alternatives, and make our choice on which difficulties it is better to live with.
It is clear, here, that the problem of evil is implicitly rooted in the existence of the good and in moral government. So, it assumes what it would overturn by trying to undermine the only serious candidate world root necessary being able to bridge is and ought. (Which, we recall an ill-advised almost angry brushing asidem on above, but no cogent atheistical answer was given.) KFkairosfocus_{July 19, 2019
July
07
Jul
19
19
2019
02:21 AM
2
02
21
AM
PDT}

PS: Plato's warning, as a reminder:
Ath [in The Laws, Bk X 2,350+ ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ --> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . . [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-
[ --> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by "winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . " cf a video on Plato's parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]
These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,
[ --> Evolutionary materialism -- having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT -- leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for "OUGHT" is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in "spin") . . . ]
and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ --> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ --> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush -- as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [--> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].
And again, in The Republic, he elaborates on the mutinous ship of state taken over by ill-advised pols, profs [he calls such sophists in his writings] and pundits (resemblance to recent trends across our civilisation is not a coincidence):
It is not too hard to figure out that our civilisation is in deep trouble and is most likely headed for shipwreck. (And of course, that sort of concern is dismissed as “apocalyptic,” or neurotic pessimism that refuses to pause and smell the roses.) Plato’s Socrates spoke to this sort of situation, long since, in the ship of state parable in The Republic, Bk VI:
>>[Soc.] I perceive, I said, that you are vastly amused at having plunged me into such a hopeless discussion; but now hear the parable, and then you will be still more amused at the meagreness of my imagination: for the manner in which the best men are treated in their own States is so grievous that no single thing on earth is comparable to it; and therefore, if I am to plead their cause, I must have recourse to fiction, and put together a figure made up of many things, like the fabulous unions of goats and stags which are found in pictures. Imagine then a fleet or a ship in which there is a captain [–> often interpreted, ship’s owner] who is taller and stronger than any of the crew, but he is a little deaf and has a similar infirmity in sight, and his knowledge of navigation is not much better. [= The people own the community and in the mass are overwhelmingly strong, but are ill equipped on the whole to guide, guard and lead it] The sailors are quarrelling with one another about the steering – every one is of opinion that he has a right to steer [= selfish ambition to rule and dominate], though he has never learned the art of navigation and cannot tell who taught him or when he learned, and will further assert that it cannot be taught, and they are ready to cut in pieces any one who says the contrary. They throng about the captain, begging and praying him to commit the helm to them [–> kubernetes, steersman, from which both cybernetics and government come in English]; and if at any time they do not prevail, but others are preferred to them, they kill the others or throw them overboard [ = ruthless contest for domination of the community], and having first chained up the noble captain’s senses with drink or some narcotic drug [ = manipulation and befuddlement, cf. the parable of the cave], they mutiny and take possession of the ship and make free with the stores; thus, eating and drinking, they proceed on their voyage in such a manner as might be expected of them [–> Cf here Luke’s subtle case study in Ac 27]. Him who is their partisan and cleverly aids them in their plot for getting the ship out of the captain’s hands into their own whether by force or persuasion [–> Nihilistic will to power on the premise of might and manipulation making ‘right’ ‘truth’ ‘justice’ ‘rights’ etc], they compliment with the name of sailor, pilot, able seaman, and abuse the other sort of man, whom they call a good-for-nothing; but that the true pilot must pay attention to the year and seasons and sky and stars and winds, and whatever else belongs to his art, if he intends to be really qualified for the command of a ship, and that he must and will be the steerer, whether other people like or not-the possibility of this union of authority with the steerer’s art has never seriously entered into their thoughts or been made part of their calling. Now in vessels which are in a state of mutiny and by sailors who are mutineers, how will the true pilot be regarded? Will he not be called by them a prater, a star-gazer, a good-for-nothing? [Ad.] Of course, said Adeimantus. [Soc.] Then you will hardly need, I said, to hear the interpretation of the figure, which describes the true philosopher in his relation to the State[ --> here we see Plato's philosoppher-king emerging]; for you understand already. [Ad.] Certainly. [Soc.] Then suppose you now take this parable to the gentleman who is surprised at finding that philosophers have no honour in their cities; explain it to him and try to convince him that their having honour would be far more extraordinary. [Ad.] I will. [Soc.] Say to him, that, in deeming the best votaries of philosophy to be useless to the rest of the world, he is right; but also tell him to attribute their uselessness to the fault of those who will not use them, and not to themselves. The pilot should not humbly beg the sailors to be commanded by him –that is not the order of nature; neither are ‘the wise to go to the doors of the rich’ –the ingenious author of this saying told a lie –but the truth is, that, when a man is ill, whether he be rich or poor, to the physician he must go, and he who wants to be governed, to him who is able to govern. The ruler who is good for anything ought not to beg his subjects to be ruled by him [ --> down this road lies the modern solution: a sound, well informed people will seek sound leaders, who will not need to manipulate or bribe or worse, and such a ruler will in turn be checked by the soundness of the people, cf. US DoI, 1776]; although the present governors of mankind are of a different stamp; they may be justly compared to the mutinous sailors, and the true helmsmen to those who are called by them good-for-nothings and star-gazers. [Ad.] Precisely so, he said. [Soc] For these reasons, and among men like these, philosophy, the noblest pursuit of all, is not likely to be much esteemed by those of the opposite faction; not that the greatest and most lasting injury is done to her by her opponents, but by her own professing followers, the same of whom you suppose the accuser to say, that the greater number of them are arrant rogues, and the best are useless; in which opinion I agreed [--> even among the students of the sound state (here, political philosophy and likely history etc.), many are of unsound motivation and intent, so mere education is not enough, character transformation is critical]. [Ad.] Yes. [Soc.] And the reason why the good are useless has now been explained? [Ad.] True. [Soc.] Then shall we proceed to show that the corruption of the majority is also unavoidable, and that this is not to be laid to the charge of philosophy any more than the other? [Ad.] By all means. [Soc.] And let us ask and answer in turn, first going back to the description of the gentle and noble nature.[ -- > note the character issue] Truth, as you will remember, was his leader, whom he followed always and in all things [ --> The spirit of truth as a marker]; failing in this, he was an impostor, and had no part or lot in true philosophy [--> the spirit of truth is a marker, for good or ill] . . . >>
(There is more than an echo of this in Acts 27, a real world case study. [Luke, a physician, was an educated Greek with a taste for subtle references.] This blog post, on soundness in policy, will also help)
kairosfocus_{July 19, 2019
July
07
Jul
19
19
2019
02:09 AM
2
02
09
AM
PDT}

BB, You continue to avoid the main focus of the thread and the main arguments you began with above, now trying to pull us off on polarising tangents. We are entitled, first, to conclude with high confidence that your main talking points were rhetorical bluffs. First, there is a reasonable definition of atheism as disbelief in the reality of God, with either the explicit claim to know so, or the implicit claim to know that there is "no evidence" that supports that reality. The challenge to the definition has failed. The claim that there is "no evidence" has also collapsed and it is highly significant that neither you nor others from the penumbra of objectors have been able to cogently answer, summarise or even link in reply. The atheism as default claim is therefore ill-founded and worldviews embedding atheism must cogently answer to comparative difficulties across factual adequacy, coherence and balanced explanatory power. This too has been conspicuously absent. We don't even see a link and clip approach. All of that is telling, given the sort of impositions that are so commonly seen. Latterly, you have suggested (in the course of putting up attempted toxic distractors) that we are not under moral government, starting with our intellectual faculties being governed through duties to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to justice etc. You have suggested that this undermines the case that the required necessary being world root is inherently good and utterly wise. However, it is manifest that such an argument on your part is self-referentially incoherent (thus refuting and falsifying itself), intellectually suicidal and outright nihilistic, an appeal to power not reason and responsibility. A key sign of such is how when you have made such claims you have had to rely on our knowledge of and sense of obligation under these duties. In short, you cannot escape the force of what you would undermine. We have a right to conclude that your argument fails, irretrievably fails. Going further, on being answered in your attempts to taint pro-life views with violence, you reveal a lack of understanding of lawfulness and of how sound law, properly backed by community consensus and sound conscience, then enforced by honourable officers, is key to a stable, sound society. We can dismiss false accusations of nazism and the like as worthless toxic rhetoric. But I do call you on your ad hominem to ET just above. This thread demonstrates the ruinous and irresponsible nature of evolutionary materialism, as Plato long since warned, c 360 BC. Those who neglect or dismiss sound, hard bought lessons of history (here, the ruin of Athens, the first great experiment in democracy) do our civilisation no favours. KFkairosfocus_{July 19, 2019
July
07
Jul
19
19
2019
02:03 AM
2
02
03
AM
PDT}

ET
The law. Until you acknowledge that you will continue to prove that you are nothing but a willfully ignorant troll on an agenda.
So, if the law says that you must report the location of all Jews to the authorities, you would do so because you are morally obliged to do so? Hitler would have loved you as a loyal citizen of Nazi Germany.Brother Brian_{July 18, 2019
July
07
Jul
18
18
2019
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PDT}

KF
PS: Again, your arguments pivot on our having known duties to truth, right reason, prudence, justice, etc. This points to the linked issues, and to the unmet burden of warrant for atheistical views as has been highlighted above from the OP on.
Actually, my argument is based on you not following what you claim to be known duties to truth, right reason, prudence, justice, etc. This points to the unmet burden of warrant for heistical viewsBrother Brian_{July 18, 2019
July
07
Jul
18
18
2019
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PDT}

KF@449, yes, Wilberforce was instrumental in getting the act passed. But the only thing that ended the international slave trade was The IS civil war, which removed the demand. But even if he was successful in eliminating the international slave trade (which he wasn’t) it took the violent deaths of over 600,000 Americans to end the western practice of slavery. A practice that was self perpetuating. Slaves, like other humans, make babies. And those babies provided the source of future slaves. And now you are faced with a 800+ million holocaust, and you are not willing to skin a knee to stop it. That is just incomprehensible.Brother Brian_{July 18, 2019
July
07
Jul
18
18
2019
07:47 PM
7
07
47
PM
PDT}

So, again, why is it morally acceptable to use measured violence to prevent injury to a child, but not morally acceptable to use measured violence to prevent an abortion.
The law. Until you acknowledge that you will continue to prove that you are nothing but a willfully ignorant troll on an agenda.ET_{July 18, 2019
July
07
Jul
18
18
2019
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT}

BB, the history is that the actions of Wilberforce were decisive, towards both the breaking of the slavery system (it set up abolition) and it broke the trade -- and note, I am speaking here to the Triangular trade of transatlantic kidnapping and transporting slaves, with at first particular reference to the British Empire (and by extension to the US through the clause in the US Constitution). Of course, there was a now openly lawless continuation of kidnapping and selling into slavery as continues to today; hence issues concerning human trafficking; no law and no law enforcement will utterly eliminate a serious crime that there are people motivated to do by some hoped for advantage, but enforcement and suppression of wrongdoing under just law is a key step in the betterment of civilisation. But that became both illegal and subject to enforcement that broke its power, which is what the Royal Navy patrolled against. Other initiatives dealt with the various practices elsewhere, in the USA ending in a Civil War. Again, Wilberforce's moves had an impact utterly beyond a lawless, self-defeating approach; changing our civilisation for the better. You have also inadvertently exposed the fundamental lawlessness of the ongoing enterprise of killing our living posterity in the womb. That lawlessness is itself an issue to be recognised and addressed. KF PS: Again, your arguments pivot on our having known duties to truth, right reason, prudence, justice, etc. This points to the linked issues, and to the unmet burden of warrant for atheistical views as has been highlighted above from the OP on.kairosfocus_{July 18, 2019
July
07
Jul
18
18
2019
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT}

SA
It’s almost like you were embarrassed and silenced by posts 381, 383 and 384.
If that makes you sleep better at night, by all means go with it.Brother Brian_{July 18, 2019
July
07
Jul
18
18
2019
05:42 PM
5
05
42
PM
PDT}

BB
It’s almost like moral values are subjective.
It's almost like you were embarrassed and silenced by posts 381, 383 and 384. But for some reason you decided to join the conversation again.Silver Asiatic_{July 18, 2019
July
07
Jul
18
18
2019
05:35 PM
5
05
35
PM
PDT}

SA
It is self-refuting. In one statement, there are no objective morals, in the next they are outraged about social causes.
It’s almost like moral values are subjective.Brother Brian_{July 18, 2019
July
07
Jul
18
18
2019
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT}

KF
Which, again, underscores why Wilberforce’s approach is right.
Yes, he was instrumental in getting the Slave Trade Act passed. Which reduced (not eliminated) the slave trade. It drove it underground (as a legal ban on abortions would do). How many Africans were dumped overboard by illegal slave transport rather than pay the fine? Hundreds? Thousands? Countless deaths just to avoid a fine. And a fine was the extent of the penalty. And the slave trade still prospered long after the act was passed. Slaves were bred and traded in the US for decades after the act was passed. It took an act of violence to end the slave trade in the US. An act of violence that killed more Americans than all other wars combined. So, again, why is it morally acceptable to use measured violence to prevent injury to a child, but not morally acceptable to use measured violence to prevent an abortion. Until you can rationalize that inconsistency, you have to accept the likelihood that your objective moral governance isn’t as objective (ir as moral) as you thought it was.Brother Brian_{July 18, 2019
July
07
Jul
18
18
2019
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT}

KF
... the attempts to undermine such through posing moral dilemmas and preening through the rhetoric of one-upmanship, inevitably are self-referentially incoherent.
It is self-refuting. In one statement, there are no objective morals, in the next they are outraged about social causes.Silver Asiatic_{July 18, 2019
July
07
Jul
18
18
2019
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT}

BB, prohibition actually seriously suppressed alcohol consumption in the US. The drugs enforcement has a similar effect, given the problem: erosion of lawfulness and want of a social consensus. However, given widespread demand, it also led to unregulated black market industries based on organised crime, now reducing Mexico to civil war and being a main means of support for both Communist and Islamist terrorism and insurgencies across the world. Which, again, underscores why Wilberforce's approach is right. Also, those who promote an inherently amoral worldview which invites nihilism are undermining the stability of our civilisation. KFkairosfocus_{July 18, 2019
July
07
Jul
18
18
2019
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT}

Brother Brian:
Yet you find it morally acceptable to use measured violence to prevent someone from killing an innocent person but not morally acceptable to use measured violence to prevent an abortion.
It is the LAW that prevents us from using measured violence to prevent an abortion. Your alleged inconsistencies have exposed your ignorance. Nice own goal...ET_{July 18, 2019
July
07
Jul
18
18
2019
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

"AS, again, please avoid name-twisting. KF" Oh, all right. Andrewasauber_{July 18, 2019
July
07
Jul
18
18
2019
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

Brother Brian:
And we know how well that approach has worked to reduce drug use.
It shows that no one, let alone any mother or potential mother, has the right to do whatever they want to their bodies.
So if the law says that you are only allowed one child and that if you get pregnant with a second you must have an abortion, you are morally obliged to have that abortion?
It would be up to the law to prevent such a scenario. Or up to the people to change the law.ET_{July 18, 2019
July
07
Jul
18
18
2019
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT}

AS, again, please avoid name-twisting. KFkairosfocus_{July 18, 2019
July
07
Jul
18
18
2019
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT}

BB, empty rhetoric. The thread above makes clear that you sought to use moral dillemmas (and the like) as ways to undermine part of the worldviews inferences on the nature of the required necessary being world root. Also, candidates to fill the bill. That has demonstrably failed, after you spent days pushing ill founded claims that I had no answer, No, I was -- and continue to be -- busy, but took time to lay out a 101 on the frame of positive arguments for theism, as that was objectively needed. This also answers another atheistical claim you championed: there is no evidence for the actuality of God and weak form atheism, so-called, is the proper default worldview stance. That too has failed. You and others have further failed to provide cogent responses and substantiation. We all can take due note, as there is a whole Internet out there so we can expect that the substantial cases should be out there, an easy web search away. What I find so far is that typically there is a gap on logic of being which warps response to the issues on the table. All, as is in the thread above. KFkairosfocus_{July 18, 2019
July
07
Jul
18
18
2019
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT}

Brother Blowhard, There are murders of all types all day, every day, all over the world. I doubt you are trying or have tried to stop a single one of them. I conclude your preferences indicate you are a shallow coward. Andrewasauber_{July 18, 2019
July
07
Jul
18
18
2019
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

AS, please refrain from name twisting -- broken window theory. KFkairosfocus_{July 18, 2019
July
07
Jul
18
18
2019
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

"your personal comforts are more important than another person’s life" Brother Braindead, How do you figure that? Andrewasauber_{July 18, 2019
July
07
Jul
18
18
2019
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

KF
Yes, moral government of our minds and lives is inescapable. That is why the attempts to undermine such through posing moral dilemmas and preening through the rhetoric of one-upmanship, inevitably are self-referentially incoherent.
We are not talking about moral dilemmas, we are talking about inconsistencies in the application of moral values. According to you aborting a fetus is the moral equivalent of killing an innocent person. Hence your oft used holocaust reference. Yet you find it morally acceptable to use measured violence to prevent someone from killing an innocent person but not morally acceptable to use measured violence to prevent an abortion. It is these types of inconsistencies that make your concept self-referrentially incoherent.Brother Brian_{July 18, 2019
July
07
Jul
18
18
2019
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT}

BB, AS, ET (& Sev): I suggest a bit of history that I have previously pointed out is relevant. William Wilberforce was a wealthy man, who doubtless could have funded a privateer ship or a few and set out to make private war on the slavers. Had he done so, he would have simply showed himself as a pirate, his vessels would have been hunted down and he would have -- rightly -- ended up at execution dock in London. Instead of lawlessness or retiring to be quiet in the land, he spent his life in an uphill fight against the low hanging fruit, the kidnapping based slave trade. Which was the pivotal strategic point. Perhaps, the secularists are unaware of the NT teaching here:
1 Tim 1:8 Now we know [without any doubt] that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully and appropriately, 9 understanding the fact that law is not enacted for the righteous person [the one in right standing with God], but for lawless and rebellious people, for the ungodly and sinful, for the irreverent and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for sexually immoral persons, for homosexuals, for [a]kidnappers and slave traders, for liars, for perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted. 12 I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has granted me [the needed] strength and made me able for this, because He considered me faithful and trustworthy, putting me into service [for this ministry], 13 even though I was formerly a blasphemer [of our Lord] and a persecutor [of His church] and a shameful and outrageous and violent aggressor [toward believers]. Yet I was shown mercy because I acted out of ignorance in unbelief. [AMP]
The result of building a movement and a national consensus was a transformation of law and the sense of the duties of government. Formerly, the UK viewed the slave trade as a pillar of support for the Royal Navy. By the time Wilberforce was finished, the Royal Navy stood watch at enormous cost for a full century to break the slave trade. And this was embedded in international law. Let that stand in exposure of hollow rhetoric counselling lawlessness in order to try to evade the force of clear principles of moral government and the world roots issues they surface. KF PS: Notice, gospel ethics is integral to the gospel, it is a key part of "sound doctrine."kairosfocus_{July 18, 2019
July
07
Jul
18
18
2019
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT}

SA: Right now, this is what we have in-thread and on-target, from 427:
KF such alleged dilemmas appeal to the principles they would overturn to have any persuasiveness [SA:] That is a cogent and decisive answer to the sort of moral outrage and various dilemmas that are put forward in place of a real discussion. There is always an appeal to principles.
Yes, moral government of our minds and lives is inescapable. That is why the attempts to undermine such through posing moral dilemmas and preening through the rhetoric of one-upmanship, inevitably are self-referentially incoherent. We are under government of known, undeniable duties to truth, right reason, prudence, sound conscience, justice and more. Therefore, it is perfectly in order to address linked logic of being and the need to bridge the IS-OUGHT gap in the only possible place: the necessary being root of reality. Which requires that that root be inherently good and utterly wise. Hence, the sort of palpable anger in attempts to undermine such. KFkairosfocus_{July 18, 2019
July
07
Jul
18
18
2019
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT}

ET
That is WRONG. Do illegal drugs in front of the police and watch your “right” to go to prison.
And we know how well that approach has worked to reduce drug use.
What our moron atheists seem to forget is that we are morally obligated to follow the law.
So if the law says that you are only allowed one child and that if you get pregnant with a second you must have an abortion, you are morally obliged to have that abortion? That might come as a surprise some people here.Brother Brian_{July 18, 2019
July
07
Jul
18
18
2019
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

Andrew
You are living an a stupid woke fantasy land. Trying to get anywhere near an abortion doctor or patient when they are in the abortion mill to do their killing will get you violently subdued by security, likely arrested, and your life otherwise messed up.
It is nice to know that your personal comforts are more important than another person's life.Brother Brian_{July 18, 2019
July
07
Jul
18
18
2019
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 17 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply