>RS: There is no such thing as an "objective moral standard".
>Christianity doesn't have it any more than materialism does.
>RS: Even the Christian moral code has not been logically proven to have
>arisen from a higher power than the human species.
>RS: The laws of nature say nothing about morality, and attempts to derive morality
>from such laws have always been disastrous. Morality, as humans
>define it, is based on *emotion*.
However, subjectivity is not the necessary consequence of a Christian
worldview. The Christian worldview claims the opposite, that a moral
standard independent of anyone's particular existence, is in effect.
Russel seems to grant the validity of this with the following
qualification:
>RS: Except that it rests on one HUGE assumption: the existence of
>the Judeo-Christian God. If that cannot be proven (and it hasn't),
>then the logic goes right out the window and Christian morality
>becomes just as subjective as any other.
Since subjectivity is not a necessary consequence of a Christian
worldview, "subjective" as applied to the Christian view in an equal
sense to the materialist view, is probably not the correct term to
use. Russel, when you use the term "subjective," what I believe you
really mean is, that Christians assume a premise (presupposition),
i.e. there is a God and he is revealed in scripture, and that this
presupposition cannot be proven any more than the premise of
materialism. You would simply assert that the premise is wrong.
If this is what you mean, there is a sense in which I agree. You are
right in that logic cannot provide everything. Logic may be able to
get us from point A to point B, but cannot supply point A. Since we
don't know everything, everyone makes certain assumptions about
reality that become part of their premises (whether they recognize
them or not - even in practicing science, I might add, which is one
reason this discussion is important).
However, you also seem to think (in many posts) that some of us are trying to
prove the existence of God, and that we need to before we can make a case. Not
exactly. Furthermore, you are asking a requirement that you do not fulfill yourself.
You have not, and cannot, prove materialism. We have already agreed above that
the assertion of God's existence is a presupposition, like
materialism. As a Christian, God is my starting point, not the end to
be proved. I don't have to "prove God" any more than you have to
"prove" materialism. However, if I would argue anything, I would
argue that the existence of God is self-evident, and the inability of
materialists to maintain consistency with their own premise of materialism
is direct testimony to that fact. Even the materialists testify to
transcendent non-material realities such as rationality and morality
(see following post). But if they are consistent with their premise,
why would they have any reason to assume the reality of such things?
Regards, Paul D. Brown
MPI of Chem Ecol., Washington State U.