Re: logic makes a comeback

Peter Grice (petergrice@ultra.net.au)
Fri, 13 Jun 1997 11:58:35 +1000

PG>>
>>Now before you respond to this in the manner you have so many times in the
>>past (by turning it on its head and charging the Christian theist with the
>>same thing),

RS>>
>Too late. I will always hold my opponents to the same standard that they
>hold me.

No, Russell - what you always do is break up a person's point into
sentences and refute those sentences as though they were the point of the
argument. I had specifically asked you not to do so because I was about to
make a point to clarify it all, and you interject with "Too late."
Nevertheless, my qualifying point was...

>>let me make this point to qualify: An atheist cannot point to
>>anything within their own worldview that is a transcendent and objective
>>standard of morality, whereas a Christian theist can.

....notice the phrase "within their own worldview"?

>Wrong. A Christian theist can point to something that *they think* is
>a transcendent and objective standard of morality. The trouble is, another
>Christian will have another morality (it may differ slightly or drastically)
>that *they* think is transcendent and objective.

You are disagreeing with a straw man, which is why I recommend deliberating
a little longer before responding. I agree with your comment and I can
tell you it does not contradict what I've said.

I wrote recently on this thread:

"The subjectivity is at the human level, where we try to define and grasp
the objective standard we often appeal to [...] The objective moral
standard does not depend on how it is interpreted."

This is analogous to the way I perceive Truth as an immovable pillar. It
is the answer to every question, it is inflexible, not a matter of
interpretation - Truth is Truth and will not budge. It's transcendent, and
it's objective. Doesn't matter how the geocentrists, the atheists or the
phlogistonic chemists *interpret* it. It's still there as it ever was.
Science is one quest to know it better.

The whole point is that the Christian theist can point in their worldview
to a like pillar of *moral* Truth. This is not "God's rules, and if you
don't keep them you'll be punished" - but rather it's God Himself. God is
the pillar of moral truth, according to the Christian theist worldview
(Matthew 19:17). We already know this is not the atheist worldview, so we
don't need to establish that fact. You continually refer to the behavior
of Christians as proof that their standard is bogus, but your argument is
continually irrelevent. You might like to read the C.S.Lewis chapter I
posted, which should help you differentiate between something transcendent
(the standard) and that which it transcends (us).

Regards,
Peter Grice