Re: logic makes a comeback

Russell Stewart (diamond@rt66.com)
Mon, 02 Jun 1997 12:42:03 -0600

At 10:26 PM 6/1/97 PST, you wrote:
> Although one does not prove a premise, something one can do (as
> has been noted many times in various posts) is look for internal
> logical consistency in the argument. Although it does not affect
> the argument itself, one can also look at the practical
> outworkings (behavior) of those who claim the argument (Jim Bell
> has addressed this somewhat as far as this effects Christians or
> other theists). Russel, you have done a little of the latter
> (with allegations about crusaders, etc.) but have completely
> ignored the former. For example, in responding to a previous post
> of mine (not to mention numerous others), you did not answer a
> single question that was raised, nor did you show how the
> Christian position of declaring that there are transcendent moral
> standards was logically inconsistent with the premise.

I have shown this several times. It's a simple argument, so I'll review
it here:

Christian morality rests on the a-priori assumption that God exists,
and that He wants us to behave in a certain way (for example, love one
another). However, since there is no objective logical evidence for
God's existence, much less His motivations, one can develop a transcendent
Christian standard that claims just about anything -- the inferiority of
non-whites, His desire for "Good Christians" to kill homosexuals, abortion
doctors, communists, Muslims, Jews, or whatever else.

> If you didn't like the previous questions, we'll try some others.
> Ask yourself the question: Is rape wrong? Is it wrong just for
> you, or wrong also for Billy down the street, the crusaders, Ted
> Bundy, and you? Not just, "is it socially deviant?" Picking your
> nose might be socially deviant. Not, "is it socially
> unacceptable?" Not, "do most people think its wrong?" Is it wrong.
> Yes or no.

Yes, it's wrong.

>The answer logically consistent with materialism is
> "no," because right and wrong are absolute non-material moral
> categories that *do not even exist* if matter, time, space and energy
> (or any other material construct) are the sum total of reality.

Wrong. Just because they are the result of biochemical processes doesn't
make them any less real or any less important.

[Character attacks removed.]

_____________________________________________________________
| Russell Stewart |
| http://www.rt66.com/diamond/ |
|_____________________________________________________________|
| Albuquerque, New Mexico | diamond@rt66.com |
|_____________________________|_______________________________|

If Rush is Right, then I'll take what's Left.