Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Questions Concerning Atheism As A Positive Worldview


Guest Stude

Recommended Posts

Greetings and peace be with you (all). Although I am asking these questions as a theist, I hope our discussions could occur over common ground rather than contested territory inasmuch as that is possible.

The majority of arguments and threads regarding theism here seem to be concerned with “poking holes” in this or that syllogism or line of reasoning raised in its defense. The issue of atheism as a standalone philosophy is little discussed, if at all. Part of this could of course be the desire for atheists to deconstruct theistic philosophical structures (leaving little time and effort to build up the “home base” so to speak) or perhaps many so-called atheists are in fact closer to agnosticism, with the former label adopted simply for argumentative purposes (in which case my proceeding inquiry could extend towards the agnostic worldview). Whatever the case may be, I am curious as to what degree atheism has been developed regarding the basic metaphysical/ontological structures (i.e. the problem of evil, what is morality, what is reason et cetera) it presumably inherits from the fall of theism, assumed here for heuristic purposes. Although admittedly my ultimate goal is to hopefully deconstruct the final possibility of atheism as a worldview, I am not so sure if atheism is in and of itself taken seriously as a presuppositional worldview and, if it is, what exactly that entails. Feel free to extend this to agnosticism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Ouroboros

    13

  • Shyone

    10

  • insanezenmistress

    8

  • Snakefoot

    7

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in god(s). There is no common presuppositional world-view, philosophy, life-lesson or attitude. We, aside from a common bond in no longer being xian, are as diverse a group as any other.

We just no longer look at life with jesus-colored glasses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so where are these questions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is unbelief in Santa Claus a worldview as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Atheism is not a world view. I think all Christians who start talking about the "Atheist Worldview" need to write that on a chalkboard at least 100 times after class.

 

Secular Humanism is a world view. Scientific Naturalism is a world view. Materialism is a worldview. When people ask me what I am, I like to say Freethinker because I don't believe dogma or the contents of a designated "Holy Book" should determine what I think. Sometimes I say I am a Skeptic because everything should be open to evaluation and scrutiny.

 

Each of these ways of approaching the surrounding world are atheistic in nature because they do not posit a god as part of the worldview. But atheism itself is not a worldview.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspected as much. Thanks for the prompt replies.

If, as I may assume from your posts, the only common element to the people on this board is their status as an ex-christian, does that then mean some are atheists (as in freethinking), others agnostics, and still others perhaps other religions such as Buddhists, mormons, et cetera? And apart from that, to what extent is the baby thrown out with the bathwater, so to speak? Or more specifically, is the idea of God, of absolute truth, of a spiritual reality summarily rejected or “rescued” from the trash pile? I am especially interested in those who may have turned to other religions – are they doing so because they think it is the truth, or are the arguments and logic leading them away from Christianity also employed against other religions (and thus causing them to see all religion “as good as one another,” with their choice of what to believe in being a purely aesthetic one)?

Concerning specifically free-thinking atheists as outlined in oddbird’s post, I understand how one might see atheism as not being a worldview especially considering the multiplicity of perspectives within that label. Considering the sheer impact the lack of a god has on any number of other foundational issues (view of man, morality, purpose of life – I’m sure you know the drill), however, I am inclined to disagree. Of the worldviews you’ve mentioned, my understanding is scientific naturalism and materialism are largely synonymous while secular humanism is essentially derived from the naturalistic mindset. All of these are fundamentally derived from the atheistic mindset; one might consider them “sub-views” in that respect. Keep in mind I haven’t studied these issues in great depth, so please be patient with me if I inadvertently misrepresent your perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

Hello Stude.

 

The issue of atheism as a standalone philosophy is little discussed, if at all.

You have no idea how tiresome this line of questioning becomes. There is no "atheist philosophy."

 

Theistic types regard atheism as some sort of competing religion. Atheism is not a philosophy. Atheism is not a decision, but rather a conclusion. When people make an extraordinary claim (gods, fairies, etc.) but present no supporting evidence, the rational mind rejects that claim. Atheists simply see no evidence or proof to support the existence of a god (and as a corollary that usually includes all things "supernatural.") It's a bit like the reasons you don't worship Allah or Thor.

 

An atheist is simply unconvinced that any gods exist. Atheism is not a club, religion or brotherhood with an official world view, rules, tenets or bylaws. There are atheist priests, Buddhists and Humanists. There are atheists whose lives look no different than that of the most devout Christian, Jew or Muslim. There are atheists who are good and there are those who are bad, just like we find in the Christian community.

 

Christians in particular can't seem to grasp this simple concept. They assume atheists have rejected god or are angry with him They see atheism as a rebellion. Nothing could be further from the truth. One cannot rebel against that which does not exist.

 

Before your religion was invented, in other cultures and among atheists today, people have lived productive and happy lives without your god. He simply is not necessary for morality, benevolence and philanthropy. The good things that religionists like to attribute to their particular god are, and have always been, enjoyed by those worshipping other gods or no god at all.

 

Again, an atheist has no god belief, period. He may feed the hungry, house the homeless, man the free clinic, or rob banks. All kinds of people and personalities are included in the atheist label, just as Christians have their missionaries, martyrs and child molesters.

 

The implication or underlying agenda in posts like this one is that people who don't believe in your particular superstition can't possibly have full, productive, meaningful lives. To that I say "bullshit." Your narrow and distorted view of reality is limiting, destructive, exclusive and arrogant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If, as I may assume from your posts, the only common element to the people on this board is their status as an ex-christian, does that then mean some are atheists (as in freethinking), others agnostics, and still others perhaps other religions such as Buddhists, mormons, et cetera?

Correct. But I'm not sure we have any Mormon here, but we've had a Buddhist before. Most members are some combination, or other, of agnostic, deist, atheist, pantheist, panentheist, or pagan.

 

And apart from that, to what extent is the baby thrown out with the bathwater, so to speak? Or more specifically, is the idea of God, of absolute truth, of a spiritual reality summarily rejected or “rescued” from the trash pile? I am especially interested in those who may have turned to other religions – are they doing so because they think it is the truth, or are the arguments and logic leading them away from Christianity also employed against other religions (and thus causing them to see all religion “as good as one another,” with their choice of what to believe in being a purely aesthetic one)?

I've become more of an atheist/panentheist. I have found that it's the best position to be until I can find a religion which would prove itself to be true. So far, no religion has.

 

Concerning specifically free-thinking atheists as outlined in oddbird’s post, I understand how one might see atheism as not being a worldview especially considering the multiplicity of perspectives within that label. Considering the sheer impact the lack of a god has on any number of other foundational issues (view of man, morality, purpose of life – I’m sure you know the drill), however, I am inclined to disagree.

Put the word "atheism" to be equal to "non belief," and it makes more sense.

 

Some atheists (the hardcore ones) consider atheism to be a belief in no-gods, but I tend to disagree.

 

You don't believe in Allah, yet your worldview is not of an a-allah-ist.

 

Of the worldviews you’ve mentioned, my understanding is scientific naturalism and materialism are largely synonymous while secular humanism is essentially derived from the naturalistic mindset. All of these are fundamentally derived from the atheistic mindset; one might consider them “sub-views” in that respect. Keep in mind I haven’t studied these issues in great depth, so please be patient with me if I inadvertently misrepresent your perspective.

Also include Raelians who are atheists and believe in aliens. They have a church around this concept, and their worldview is based on the idea of pleasing these aliens (who is coming back eventually). So do atheists in general share that worldview? No.

 

Many Buddhists are in all practical sense atheists. They don't believe in some particular God who rules and control the world, i.e. a-theists. Deists could also be considered atheists, in the strictest sense. And pantheists, panenetheists, etc as well.

 

So which one of them represent the "atheist worldview" that you're talking about?

 

Perhaps we could agree that atheism is a foundation for a worldview, but it is not necessarily a worldview in itself. Fundamentally, atheism is just lack of belief in a personal God.

 

With your argument, would you say that Judaism and Islam are true since they're worldview is based on belief in a personal God? But Hinduism is false because it is a polytheism?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in god(s). There is no common presuppositional world-view, philosophy, life-lesson or attitude. We, aside from a common bond in no longer being xian, are as diverse a group as any other.

We just no longer look at life with jesus-colored glasses.

 

Yup, this has been done to death, so the only reason I'm responding is the topic keeps coming back like a bad cold, so people just aren't getting it or haven't thought about it deeply.

 

Atheism is a position on the theism question, nothing more, nothing less.

 

How people choose to live their lives and what they decide is meaningful is a completely separate issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup, this has been done to death, so the only reason I'm responding is the topic keeps coming back like a bad cold, so people just aren't getting it or haven't thought about it deeply.

I'm responding because I believe there are still a lot of people out there who never heard the answer. They live in some boxed-in environment, caged within the walls of religious dogma, and only when they're exposed to real people outside can they learn what the rest of the world think.

 

But of course, occasionally we get trolls. Even so, they're given a chance to take on the challenge first, and if they prove themselves to have no intention of real interaction, well, then so be it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or more specifically, is the idea of God, of absolute truth, of a spiritual reality summarily rejected or “rescued” from the trash pile?

 

Absolute truth is objectively proven nonsense. The idea of god is the baby in the bathwater? How so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspected as much. Thanks for the prompt replies.

If, as I may assume from your posts, the only common element to the people on this board is their status as an ex-christian, does that then mean some are atheists (as in freethinking), others agnostics, and still others perhaps other religions such as Buddhists, mormons, et cetera? And apart from that, to what extent is the baby thrown out with the bathwater, so to speak? Or more specifically, is the idea of God, of absolute truth, of a spiritual reality summarily rejected or “rescued” from the trash pile? I am especially interested in those who may have turned to other religions – are they doing so because they think it is the truth, or are the arguments and logic leading them away from Christianity also employed against other religions (and thus causing them to see all religion “as good as one another,” with their choice of what to believe in being a purely aesthetic one)?

Concerning specifically free-thinking atheists as outlined in oddbird’s post, I understand how one might see atheism as not being a worldview especially considering the multiplicity of perspectives within that label. Considering the sheer impact the lack of a god has on any number of other foundational issues (view of man, morality, purpose of life – I’m sure you know the drill), however, I am inclined to disagree. Of the worldviews you’ve mentioned, my understanding is scientific naturalism and materialism are largely synonymous while secular humanism is essentially derived from the naturalistic mindset. All of these are fundamentally derived from the atheistic mindset; one might consider them “sub-views” in that respect. Keep in mind I haven’t studied these issues in great depth, so please be patient with me if I inadvertently misrepresent your perspective.

All religions are equally wrong and equally right. The distinction comes about in the manner in which they are applied. Are they used in the service of the ego or are they used as containing spiritual truths?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Sorry for the delayed reply – I was in class for the past hour and a half).

I will freely admit that yes, my belief regarding atheism sees it as being ultimately unfulfilling. As to whether or not they can live productive, happy lives, well, we’d have to get into a definition battle. I would submit that, in view of how God created us (that is, to be in fellowship with him), only when we are saved can we be truly fulfilled. Certainly non-Christians can and do lead happy and content lives, but compared to the fulfilled Christian and especially when viewed through the lens of the Bible (specifically, the afterlife) that happiness can only be momentary. Naturally this is assuming the truth of Christianity, and so you would justifiably reject my conclusion. I point this out just to say that within our worldview, we are correct. Whether that worldview is correct or not is a different issue and one I am not interested in directly tackling right now.

Concerning further your assertion that God is not necessary for morality, benevolence et cetera, I reply that while He may not be necessary for their functional existence, He is indeed so for their absolute justification. This article lays out the framework - http://www.scribd.com/doc/4531646/Arthur-Leff-Unspeakable-Ethics-Unnatural-Law. I have read the article several times, and what I see it boiling down to is the fact (or not, as you see it) that without a God or god-like being, no system of ethics (thus morality and presumably a justified concept of benevolence) can be justified to the exclusion of any other.

My sincerest apologies for beating to death a dead horse. If it’s of any comfort, your replies have helped clarify (though undoubtedly not completely) my understanding of your position (as general or nonspecific as it apparently is). The key question, I think, is rather simple (although a long prologue precedes it). Christianity presents (and I think you’ll agree) the idea of absolute truth, giving us absolute purpose with an absolute worldview presented by the divine agent who can be unconditionally trusted to be both truthful and omniscient. If you accept this perspective, then you can confidently say, “I have the truth. Anything that contradicts this divine revelation is wrong.” Since the divine knowledge comes from one who is omniscient, even if, say, the Bible and science conflict, one could justifiably (within the Christian worldview) side with the Bible. Part and parcel with this comes the idea of hell, of sin, of salvation belonging exclusively to those believing in Christ. We may not like some of it (I know I’ve got serious questions concerning some doctrines), but if we accept Christian presuppositions then we cannot cut off what we don’t like. And so you have the idea of “not understanding, yet believing in faith.” I posted here under the preconception that most labeling themselves atheists also held to some form of absolute truth or reality (forgive me for being vague, but that’s exactly how specific it was in my mind) mainly because if one sees life, its meaning or morality as relative, one’s worldview eventually must reduce to a nihilism of some sort (a gross oversimplification, I admit, and certainly it may do so only in some abstract realm; or perhaps I’m completely wrong) which most people would not embrace. If that is not the case (namely that atheists/freethinkers are perfectly fine with a lack of absolutes), then there is not much that can be said to one another without falling back on presuppositionalist grounds (that is, our biases taint our interpretation of evidence). So, the question (which vigile has already answered for himself; I’m not sure if others share his viewpoint or not): are there absolutes in your belief system (whatever that may be), and if so, how are they justified?

(If I’ve offended anyone by ignoring their posts, understand it’s because I want to get to the basic issues first – I will respond if I am able).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, so sorry. I didn't know you had THE TRUTHTM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have read the article several times, and what I see it boiling down to is the fact (or not, as you see it) that without a God or god-like being, no system of ethics (thus morality and presumably a justified concept of benevolence) can be justified to the exclusion of any other.

 

*par opens a beer and gets the popcorn handy. this should be fun*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If, as I may assume from your posts, the only common element to the people on this board is their status as an ex-christian, does that then mean some are atheists (as in freethinking), others agnostics, and still others perhaps other religions such as Buddhists, mormons, et cetera?

Correct. But I'm not sure we have any Mormon here, but we've had a Buddhist before. Most members are some combination, or other, of agnostic, deist, atheist, pantheist, panentheist, or pagan.

 

Not exactly Hans ol' chap. I never was a Christian (not in that apologetic sense), hence my silence on a great many topics. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, so sorry. I didn't know you had THE TRUTHTM.

 

Perhaps you've misunderstood my intent. I am not saying that Christianity is the truth, and thus that you are wrong. Although I certainly believe that, in my last post I was simply positing such to show how our claim to THE TRUTH is internally coherent within our worldview. Whether that view is in fact right or wrong is another question. my primary purpose throughout this thread is to ascertain whether or not atheism has any similar claims (though I'm pretty sure now there is no common answer). Can we at least agree that given the initial premises of Christianity (Jesus is the Son of God, one of the triune Godhead; through the cross and his resurrection he proves that claim; God is Holy, loving, just, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and et cetera) Christians can justifiably claim(in that if you accept our premises, you must accept this claim) that they have access to the TRUTH (also assuming the historicity and reliability of the gospels, the apostles were on the up-and-up)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also to par, not that I can't appreciate the anticipation you must feel in awaiting my masterful exposition of Leff's article, but - well, are you? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Sorry for the delayed reply – I was in class for the past hour and a half).

I will freely admit that yes, my belief regarding atheism sees it as being ultimately unfulfilling. As to whether or not they can live productive, happy lives, well, we’d have to get into a definition battle. I would submit that, in view of how God created us (that is, to be in fellowship with him), only when we are saved can we be truly fulfilled. Certainly non-Christians can and do lead happy and content lives, but compared to the fulfilled Christian and especially when viewed through the lens of the Bible (specifically, the afterlife) that happiness can only be momentary.

Isn't that sad though? That a True Christian would be a sad Christian because this life is not the real or complete life he is hoping for?

 

How can a True Christian live a happy life here? He's hoping and wanting to go to Heaven, the better place, and this is just a temporary period of testing and trials. What meaning does that add to his or her current life? To live here in preparation for death?

 

Naturally this is assuming the truth of Christianity, and so you would justifiably reject my conclusion. I point this out just to say that within our worldview, we are correct. Whether that worldview is correct or not is a different issue and one I am not interested in directly tackling right now.

Concerning further your assertion that God is not necessary for morality, benevolence et cetera, I reply that while He may not be necessary for their functional existence, He is indeed so for their absolute justification.

Why is an absolute justification needed? What is the absolute justification for an absolute justification?

 

Have you studied the moral laws in the Old Testament? Are they applicable as moral laws in our current society or do you consider moral a progression of examination and discovery of the so-called absolute morals? What is your view on how to discern morality for a given situation? What kind of principles do you follow to correctly judge between moral and immoral actions? The Bible only? Reason only? Or a combination where the Bible only gives you the starting point, but you then use logic and reason to arrive at your final destination?

 

This article lays out the framework - http://www.scribd.com/doc/4531646/Arthur-Leff-Unspeakable-Ethics-Unnatural-Law. I have read the article several times, and what I see it boiling down to is the fact (or not, as you see it) that without a God or god-like being, no system of ethics (thus morality and presumably a justified concept of benevolence) can be justified to the exclusion of any other.

How come ethics and morals have changed? Why do we today consider slavery wrong, but society did not in ancient days? Not even the Bible condemns it. So does God support slavery? Does he support rape and child abuse as well? Why or why not? How do you know?

 

My sincerest apologies for beating to death a dead horse. If it’s of any comfort, your replies have helped clarify (though undoubtedly not completely) my understanding of your position (as general or nonspecific as it apparently is). The key question, I think, is rather simple (although a long prologue precedes it). Christianity presents (and I think you’ll agree) the idea of absolute truth, giving us absolute purpose with an absolute worldview presented by the divine agent who can be unconditionally trusted to be both truthful and omniscient.

That's all fine and dandy, however, there are 30,000 (or more) Christian denominations. It doesn't look good for the resume of "absolute truths" by providing 30,000 alternative versions of it.

 

If you accept this perspective, then you can confidently say, “I have the truth. Anything that contradicts this divine revelation is wrong.”

Absolute truths can (and do) exist, but can we always know them?

 

I think and believe that I exist is an absolute. Somehow, I do exist. So it's a truth to me.

 

Can I know for certain that you exist and not just some delusion? Not quite. I can't be as certain to your existence as to my existence. So there is obviously a degree of absolute in play here. And it is obvious that truths apply only in certain conditions and frameworks.

 

In math you can even find contradictions to truths and in science as well. How can the truths about our reality be contradictory? How can you know which truth is the absolute truth? If you have one moral code for a certain situation, how can you know it is the right one?

 

 

Since the divine knowledge comes from one who is omniscient, even if, say, the Bible and science conflict, one could justifiably (within the Christian worldview) side with the Bible.

So you're saying that you're omniscient too? That's the only way for you to know that you know the absolute truth. How can I know you're just another fake who is trying to frame me into you little cult?

 

Part and parcel with this comes the idea of hell, of sin, of salvation belonging exclusively to those believing in Christ. We may not like some of it (I know I’ve got serious questions concerning some doctrines), but if we accept Christian presuppositions then we cannot cut off what we don’t like.

(By the way, I like your writing style.)

 

What are the Christian presuppositions? Do all Christians agree to them?

 

And so you have the idea of “not understanding, yet believing in faith.” I posted here under the preconception that most labeling themselves atheists also held to some form of absolute truth or reality (forgive me for being vague, but that’s exactly how specific it was in my mind) mainly because if one sees life, its meaning or morality as relative, one’s worldview eventually must reduce to a nihilism of some sort (a gross oversimplification, I admit, and certainly it may do so only in some abstract realm; or perhaps I’m completely wrong) which most people would not embrace.

I agree and disagree.

 

Vulgar relativism, yes, it would lead to nihilism.

 

But not with subjectivism. There is this idea of society being the guiding hand for the "absolute" morality. As a group, culture, mores, values, and views changes. The changes usually are improvement to our collective and individual protection and progress. The absoluteness of morality comes from the social system. We interact. We need to eat, live, have some freedom, etc, and it comes from establishing principles in how we live together.

 

So are morals absolute? Not in the sense of absolutely the same all the time, everywhere, and for everyone, but that doesn't mean they area absolutely relative either.

 

In other words, it's between your black-and-white worldview and nihilism.

 

If that is not the case (namely that atheists/freethinkers are perfectly fine with a lack of absolutes), then there is not much that can be said to one another without falling back on presuppositionalist grounds (that is, our biases taint our interpretation of evidence). So, the question (which vigile has already answered for himself; I’m not sure if others share his viewpoint or not): are there absolutes in your belief system (whatever that may be), and if so, how are they justified?

Yes, I believe some of the are. (If we use the word "absolute" in the subjective sense presented above.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not exactly Hans ol' chap. I never was a Christian (not in that apologetic sense), hence my silence on a great many topics. :)

Sorry about that. I tried to cover as many as possible, yet I failed. :)

 

Just stop the whining already... :HaHa:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps you've misunderstood my intent. I am not saying that Christianity is the truth, and thus that you are wrong. Although I certainly believe that,

So that's exactly what you are saying.

Can we at least agree that given the initial premises of Christianity (Jesus is the Son of God, one of the triune Godhead; through the cross and his resurrection he proves that claim; God is Holy, loving, just, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and et cetera) Christians can justifiably claim(in that if you accept our premises, you must accept this claim) that they have access to the TRUTH (also assuming the historicity and reliability of the gospels, the apostles were on the up-and-up)?

Nope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
Can we at least agree that given the initial premises of Christianity (Jesus is the Son of God, one of the triune Godhead; through the cross and his resurrection he proves that claim; God is Holy, loving, just, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and et cetera) Christians can justifiably claim(in that if you accept our premises, you must accept this claim) that they have access to the TRUTH (also assuming the historicity and reliability of the gospels, the apostles were on the up-and-up)?

That's a lot of accepting and assuming, even for Christians. There are Christians who DO NOT accept the trinity and those who DO NOT accept the resurrection and others who DO NOT accept the infallibility of the gospels.

 

I must agree that if one supposes he has the ear of the one and only God, and has special status that is superior to the rest of humanity (salvation) then it follows that he must see that particular god as necessary to complete fulfillment in this life. Most of us here just happen to think it's a crock. Therefore, your beliefs are relevant to you, and you alone. Others have just as strong a belief in Allah and other supernatural models of the universe. If you choose (by faith, since there is no evidence) to believe in magic it doesn't really matter which version you adhere to. Everyone believes his god is the only real one and that everyone else is missing out on the great truth of the religion in question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, so sorry. I didn't know you had THE TRUTHTM.

 

Perhaps you've misunderstood my intent. I am not saying that Christianity is the truth, and thus that you are wrong. Although I certainly believe that, in my last post I was simply positing such to show how our claim to THE TRUTH is internally coherent within our worldview. Whether that view is in fact right or wrong is another question. my primary purpose throughout this thread is to ascertain whether or not atheism has any similar claims (though I'm pretty sure now there is no common answer). Can we at least agree that given the initial premises of Christianity (Jesus is the Son of God, one of the triune Godhead; through the cross and his resurrection he proves that claim; God is Holy, loving, just, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and et cetera) Christians can justifiably claim(in that if you accept our premises, you must accept this claim) that they have access to the TRUTH (also assuming the historicity and reliability of the gospels, the apostles were on the up-and-up)?

Of course it's internally coherent. It circles back on itself and uses itself to justify itself.

 

You said this here:

 

Christianity presents (and I think you’ll agree) the idea of absolute truth, giving us absolute purpose with an absolute worldview presented by the divine agent who can be unconditionally trusted to be both truthful and omniscient. If you accept this perspective, then you can confidently say, “I have the truth. Anything that contradicts this divine revelation is wrong.”

 

This is where you place authority. You either accept the authority of the bible/churches or you don't. This is only true to you because you accept this authority to tell you what the truth is. It's a circle Stude. It doesn't mean it's the truth, it means you have accepted someone's word that it's the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you guys. As I stated my case, I certainly have been going around in circles because I have not justified on iota my initial presuppositions. But this was intentional - not because I couldn't (many would wish to differ) but because I wished to discuss "atheism," not Christianity. All I wished to establish for Christianity on this thread was its internal coherence. I specifically avoided justifying my Christian premises because 1) It's a massive task, and 2) it would simply detract from the purpose of posting here. That said, I do appreciate the feedback.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(This address HanSolo)

Ah. Well, first I must say I truly appreciate your appreciation for my appreciation of written English (oh haha). Your objections to my assertions are well thought out, and I recognize several of them as being the artillery of past theological battles. So, let’s do this thing (note that I do not know how to quote piecemeal, so pretend your relevant statements are on the screen somewhere).

First, you point out that by my definition, a true Christian would not be fulfilled on this earth. I agree. The stated implication, then, is that such a Christian could not, in fact, be happy while living on this earth. My answer, in brief, is that you’re wrong. Expanded, I must assume that by happiness, you mean a sense of satisfaction or joy in living, in existing at some point in time. If so, even though Christians often are in sorrow, though they often are truly tested, persecuted, and put on trial, they are happy. More specifically, they are filled with joy regardless of their circumstances, for if their greatest joy is to have fellowship with God (the whole point of heaven, really), then they can do so while on this earth in whatever circumstances they are in. Note also that a genuine Christian, while certainly longing to go to Heaven, also feels an immense burden for the lost souls around him (no offense); in evangelizing and seeing souls saved, we feel genuinely fulfilled, for we are doing our calling.

Second, you question whether absolute justification is needed. This I take to have a more existential rub than anything else – the crux of the matter is, without absolute justification for morality, the best you can come up with is one of convenience or one of pragmatism. Certainly a society can function, and function well, even if they have no absolute morality (as in absolutely justified). Their citizens can also be perfectly comfortable in such an environment. But if by some chance a dissenting group forms, say, a society in which paedophilia and rape is the norm, in which women are simply objects, you would have no final justification for rejecting such “ethics” on absolute grounds. Whether that bothers you or not, I suppose, isn’t something I can answer for you. Your questions concerning OT laws is well posed, and not easily answered. I submit that to some degree, those laws are culturally bound. But there is also an essential core within those depths (please don’t ask me to elaborate; I’d need a lot more time, as in research, to detail how this works), seen partially in the Ten Commandments and carried on within the gospels. Most relevant here, I think, is Jesus’ answer to the scribe (?), that the two greatest laws are to “love God” and “love your neighbor.” I realize many would say that these commands are impossibly vague, and it certainly does seem so seen from the outside. But if we realize that loving God means pleasing him, and loving our neighbor means to labour for him, then these are in fact succinct summaries of ethical law. Certainly some gray areas apply (the question of lying to save a life, for example) and I suspect you will find my answer sorely wanting, but at the least the Bible has a definite guideline (not in the form of “do X” or “don’t do Y;” rather as we understand scripture better, we know more of what God tells us and thus what He expects of us – again, I can’t really elaborate on this to your satisfaction, but this is my position, so I’m stating it with all it’s flaws).

Third, the issue of slavery and in a larger sense the changes in ethics and morality which do happen. I would say many of these examples are changes in the expressions of God’s laws, not changes in the laws themselves. Slavery is actually fairly easy to tackle (compared to some extremely difficult OT passages – God ordering the tribe of Benjamin to kidnap virgins as wives, for example); Paul himself urges slaves to free themselves if possible, but not to worry too much about it. This must be seen in light of the Christian perspective of life on this earth – namely that we are sent to evangelize and spread the Word as much as possible. Our social status, our wealth, even possible death should be no impediment to this vital mission. So to answer your question, no, the Bible does not explicitly condemn slavery or urge social revolution against the institution. Truth be told, I would say the same even for America’s era of slavery (which was much more barbaric than that during the biblical times). Not because the idea or treatment of them was right, but because purely political action would take away from the spreading of the Word. Furthermore, I would say that more than anything else, being born again changes a person for the good. Not only slavery, but racism, violent crime, and yes rape, child abuse – all the, well, evil in the world can be traced to man’s initial fall. Please note that I am not at all saying God is unconcerned for such victims; rather, only through an inner transformation can both the victim and victimizer (both of whom are beloved by God) be saved from that vicious cycle. And yes, I know I’m going to get a lot of flak for this, but it is what I believe and, at least within my worldview, makes coherent sense. Not that I can’t appreciate the sensation that must be welling up in you right now to tear me a new one (or not?).

Fourth, you bring up the sheer number of denominations within the Christian community as evidence that our absolute truth may not be so absolute. Granted, it does not look good, but a great many of these splits are over secondary issues. As long as the core doctrinal truths are affirmed, the manner in which these are expressed do not bear condemnation. A long aside could be put here, but well, I’m frankly tired of typing this much, so please bring up specific issues if you will.

Your next two points are thoughtful ones, and again I’ll have to ask for specific issues, as what I mean by the “divine truth” is probably more limited than you’re taking it. For example, the Bible can teach old earth or young earth. Both fit the biblical evidence, mainly because the Bible is not concerned with such issues so much as it is with the fundamental message of the gospel (which ignores the OT, but hey – one thing at a time). I think you are in essence asking me how I know that the truth that I know is the absolute truth without myself being omniscient, especially given the clear metaphysical nature of my claims. TO this I must say God helps me understand in the form of the Holy Spirit who helps interpret what I read. Furthermore, like you said, there are degrees of absoluteness in knowing the truth. I don’t claim to know all the truth a this time. I am saying I know some of the absolute truth, enough to guide me in living on this earth. Only when I am given a new body, new flesh, can I truly begin to comprehend the absolute truth of God and His word.

Concerning the identity of Christian presuppositions, I’m not sure if this is comprehensive or without error, but here goes. First, that God is one God, creator of all things, Holy, Just, and Good. That through Adam and his sin, mankind has fallen and has now lost a portion of his original character, and that in the NT, Jesus of Nazareth, God Incarnate, came down in the space-time continuum within Judea. That He was God and Man, who died upon the cross for our sins and so opened the way for all mankind to come back into fellowship with God. I’m sure I missed some portions, but there you are.

Finally, your distinction between relativism and subjectivism. While the attempt and goal is admirable, I don’t see any real distinction between the two. You admit that such morality is not absolute in the sense I take it, but then claim that they aren’t absolutely relative either. Certainly in that society it is not in a functional sense, but it is an artificial absolute. As soon as some members decide they don’t like the current system, your morality is no longer absolute. I don’t really see how that is distinct from stark relativism; you are assuming a functional coherence of society which is quite independent of any absolute nature of that society’s ethics. Such a thing, as I see it, would be coincidence, nothing more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.