Do atheists have any basis for morality?

[brody196]

But that presup only works within the Christian framework!

Why couldn't a Jew use this presup to convince an atheist of theism? It's theism, but it's not Christianity.

A Jew can claim anything he/she wants, but such a one could not argue it from the authority of scripture. The God that is revealed to us from the OT is not the same revelation that the religious Jews of our day concern themselves with. They could argue in a presup manner, but it would not hold up very well for them.

He's borrowing part of our worldview (the existence of God) but not all of it (the existence of Jesus). He is affirming some kind of god. He's not necessarily affirming the Christian God. This same presupposition could be just as well employed by a Jew, or even a Muslim. There's nothing specifically Christian about presupposing the existence of a rational God who created reality. That says nothing about Jesus, or the crucifixion, or the resurrection. It simply doesn't go that far.

Of course it does! The other religions that you mention have inherent flaws that make them contradict themselves. I could elaborate on such flaws, but I would like to keep the current subject going. Again, anyone(religious or not)who argues in any way, affirms the Creator, because they borrow His creation to do such.

… and that baffles me.

Oh well...

Exactly! I'm pointing out that the presupposition works okay to move from atheism to theism, but that's not far enough along the path. You want to take him all the way to Christianity. That's where we need, it seems to me, to shift over to a more evidential approach. We have to give evidence that the Bible (both old and new testament) is the word of God, and therefore authoritative. You can't get him to believe the New Testament is the word of God by demanding he accept it. You have to show him that's what the evidence indicates. You have to point to the empty tomb. You can't just quote scripture and expect him to automatically accept it. That begs the question.

Did the Apostles argue their case in this way? Did they start at a neutral point and argue from evidence to theism, and then from theism to God? Read through the sermons in Acts to find out. We find that Paul and the others worked off of the presup that Jesus is Lord and that the revelation of God from the scriptures was their authority.

BTW, I have nothing against evidence. I use it in my own personal witnessing. But I also understand that the evidential method is subject to the interpretation of the hearer. I leave you with a very intriguing debate video where a presupper absolutely dismantles an atheist. Enjoy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=056zh7VPxDc

[Perry]

Did the Apostles argue their case in this way? Did they start at a neutral point and argue from evidence to theism, and then from theism to God? Read through the sermons in Acts to find out. We find that Paul and the others worked off of the presup that Jesus is Lord and that the revelation of God from the scriptures was their authority.

Well need go no further than the first one.

Acts 2:16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;

What was it that was spoken of by Joel? Everything they were witnessing... the evidence of their eyes.

Acts 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

Miracles, wonders, signs, done right in their midst. That's some first-class evidence.

Acts 2:32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

You realize that when a witness gives testimony, that's evidence right?

Perhaps you could point to one of those sermons that offers no evidence.

Maybe you can show an example of Jesus asking someone to believe He was who He claimed to be without also offering them some kind of proof.

The closest that comes to mind was when He told Thomas “because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. “ (John 20:29)

The very next verse says:

“And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples,”

[brody196]

Did the Apostles argue their case in this way? Did they start at a neutral point and argue from evidence to theism, and then from theism to God? Read through the sermons in Acts to find out. We find that Paul and the others worked off of the presup that Jesus is Lord and that the revelation of God from the scriptures was their authority.

Well need go no further than the first one.

Acts 2:16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;

What was it that was spoken of by Joel? Everything they were witnessing... the evidence of their eyes.

Acts 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

Miracles, wonders, signs, done right in their midst. That's some first-class evidence.

Acts 2:32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

You realize that when a witness gives testimony, that's evidence right?

Perhaps you could point to one of those sermons that offers no evidence.

Maybe you can show an example of Jesus asking someone to believe He was who He claimed to be without also offering them some kind of proof.

The closest that comes to mind was when He told Thomas “because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. “ (John 20:29)

The very next verse says:

“And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples,”

I think you are misunderstanding me, or we are just talking past each other... I never claimed that the Apostles didn't use the scriptures as an evidence, but that is precisely my point, they never used any other argument than one that would presuppose God as a starting place!!!

[Perry]

I think you are misunderstanding me, or we are just talking past each other...

I'm not sure. There's one point where I keep thinking we're in agreement, but you seem to keep suggesting otherwise. So I think it's quite possible that there's something fundamental that I'm missing.

they [the disciples, Paul etc.] never used any other argument than one that would presuppose God as a starting place!!!

How could they do otherwise? Even the atheist, all unbeknownst to him, can't do it. That's what I was trying to say in my very first post in this thread when I said:

But that fact is that God does exist, regardless of what the atheist thinks. The reality that we all inhabit, is one in which God exists, and therefore there is indeed an absolute moral standard. The atheist, bless his heart, inhabits this same reality. He can't escape the moral standard even when he tries to.

No one can do anything, be it work, play, party, pray, or burp as though God didn't exist. He does exist, and that fact shapes everything. “He be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being.”

I've thought we were in agreement on this point from the get-go.

Where I'm not so sure we're lined up is on what the limits of the presuppositional approach (minus evidence) are. I don't think they can take you much further than theism... (i.e. proving that some kind of god exists.) That is to say, using pure reasoning, with no evidence whatsoever, we can get to theism, but no further.

Let me try saying it this way: I meet an atheist and we begin our conversation. For ease of example, let's assume this guy is intellectually honest, will be swayed by rational thinking, etc. We are, both of us, going to be starting off in a world in which God exists. (Not a worldview mind you, an actual real live instantiated world) He doesn't know that, but I do. I'm determined to prove to him the existence of the God of Christianity. He's determined to prove to me there is no God. I let him go first and he tries to use reasoning, and logic, and so forth. I then demonstrate that none of that can exist apart from God. I don't have to use any kind of evidence at all to do this. Moreover, (I think this is the rubbing point of our misunderstanding) I don't have to say very much about the nature of the God in question. I need say nothing about Jesus, or the trinity, or the cross or the resurrection. I actually don't have to say much more than that there has to exist an absolute moral standard, that it exists independently of us, that the standard makes a clear distinction between good and evil. At this point, I've given him no evidence whatsoever about which he may quibble. This is pure reasoning.

Remember we're assuming he's intellectually honest. He's not digging his heals in. So now he's forced to admit that, while he thought he was starting off from an atheistic presupposition, he was really borrowing from theism all along. He's admitted there is a moral standard. He's admitted that there must be something underpinning the logic and reasoning he's been using.

But now I want to go further. I want to show that there's not just some generic moral standard, I want to show him about the one true God; the God of Christianity.

How do I do that? In the videos you linked (I watched all five of them) the Christian just testified to the God of the Bible. He simply categorically equivocated the absolute moral standard, the one he'd just demonstrated by reason alone, with the God of the Bible. I might add that, in my opinion, he did so quite effectively. He gave a great witness and a great testimony. For someone who's just had their worldview shaken, as has the intellectually honest atheist in our example, this may well be enough.

But intellectually, it's a leap, and one that is not at all trivial. The guy in your video could just has easily moved on to an argument in favor of non-Christian theistic positions.

To get to the God of the Bible, pure reasoning is no longer enough. Agreed I can testify to Christ, and by no means do I want to trivialize the value of that. I'll even say that's probably usually the best route to go. But it's not objective. It's just my testimony. At this point, I could just as easily testify to the Koran, or the Book of Mormon, and if he's sharp, he's going to point that out.

How do I steer him in the direction of the Bible without giving him the evidence in its favor? I can quote scripture, but that begs the question. The Book of Mormon and the Koran also claim to be the word of God. He needs revelation, but he needs valid revelation. How can he know which book to choose?

At this point, I have to start demonstrating that it's the Bible that has authentic revelation. That takes evidence.

That's why I asked you earlier

How would you get from generic theism to to the Christian God of the Bible without shifting to a more evidential approach?

That's not rhetorical. If there's a way, I'd be very interested in seeing it.

[brody196]

Hi Perry,

There is something that you need not forget, namely that the gospel is the "power of God to salvation"(Rom 1:16). It seems to me that you are looking for some sort of natural evidence that will give you an "aha!" moment when dealing with the atheist. If you find that evidence, let me know. It has been my experience that anytime you follow the atheist down his/her rabbit trail, you never really get anywhere. But that's just my experience, yours may be different. I like to force the atheist to give a logical account for his naturalistic/hedonistic worldview.

[Perry]

Hello again Brody,

It seems to me that you are looking for some sort of natural evidence that will give you an "aha!" moment when dealing with the atheist.

No, I'm not. You have been reading my posts haven't you?

I'm trying to deal with a theist at this point. I don't need evidence to deal with an atheist.

I like to force the atheist to give a logical account for his naturalistic/hedonistic worldview.

And that's pretty easy to do with presuppositional apologetics.

The following may appear as though I'm trying to bring in an authority to bolster what I've been saying. It's not. It's just a keen illustration of what I've been trying to communicate, and it's pretty well stated. Over in this thread two theists are having a debate.

So you claim. However, without any compelling evidence that this is so, or that Jesus ever started any institutionalized "organization," you can hardly expect those of us who think critically to accept this proposition on your claims (or those of the organization) alone. The Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons make the same claim—and with as much credibility, so far as the evidence goes.

Jon is arguing presuppositionally for the RCC, and if he maintains that approach, he's never going to get past the point made above.

So, and I'll quit harping on this now, I've only ever been asking about the limits of the presuppositional approach.

One final thing and I'll leave this alone.

I wanted to tell you how valuable this discussion has been for me. It's really helped clarify my own presuppositions, and it's made me look a lot more seriously at the approach. I think it's much more valuable than I may have given it credit for. Are you familiar with Sye Ten Bruggencate?

[brody196]

Hi Perry,

I have also deeply enjoyed this conversation and you raise some good points. I am familiar with Sye, I really enjoy his stuff. He is a one smart dude!