Do atheists have any basis for morality?

[brody196]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean.

I think it's important to try, as best we can, to meet people where they are.

It's impossible to give the atheist an equal footing, since he's wrong. I do think it's valid to demonstrate that, starting from his presuppositions, you can't really get anywhere. You can also show that his own behavior is inconsistent with his presupposition. That opens the door for starting with a different presupposition.

In Mere Christianity C.S. Lewis starts with hardly any presuppositions at all. In Letters from a Skeptic Greg Boyd meets his dad at the place where his dad is (i.e. that there is some "force" in the universe, but that it's not necessarily a personal God.)

The atheist is never going have a fair fight. The weight of reality is against him.

My point was that presuppositions matter. If the Christian starts a dialogue with an atheist and assumes that the atheist is morally neutral, then his starting point is flawed. We shouldn't start from a base of "evidence leads to God", because the atheist will almost always refute the evidence you present. Rather, we start from our presupposition of the triune God that scripture reveals and force the atheist to give an account for his worldview of hedonism/naturalism.

On a personal note, I think that any form of evangelism is valid as long as the gospel is being preached...Even by some who have bad motifs(Phill 1:15-16)

[Perry]

we start from our presupposition of the triune God that scripture reveals and force the atheist to give an account for his worldview of hedonism/naturalism.

I must still be misunderstanding you because I can't see how that could be effective at all in practice.

If the atheist isn't going to accept evidence, he certainly isn't going to accept our presupposition.

It sounds like you're proposing something like the following:

Atheist: God doesn't exist.
Perry: Yes he does! Now explain why you're so immoral you hedonist.

Like I say, I'm sure I've got to be missing something.

[brody196]

we start from our presupposition of the triune God that scripture reveals and force the atheist to give an account for his worldview of hedonism/naturalism.

I must still be misunderstanding you because I can't see how that could be effective at all in practice.

If the atheist isn't going to accept evidence, he certainly isn't going to accept our presupposition.

It sounds like you're proposing something like the following:

Atheist: God doesn't exist.
Perry: Yes he does! Now explain why you're so immoral you hedonist.

Like I say, I'm sure I've got to be missing something.

I think you are missing the thrust of the presuppositional approach.

I must still be misunderstanding you because I can't see how that could be effective at all in practice.

If the atheist isn't going to accept evidence, he certainly isn't going to accept our presupposition.

Here is the thing, by demonstrating to the atheist that his worldview cannot account for non material things such as logic, morality, and absolutes, you are showing him the folly of his presuppositions. It does not matter how much evidence you show an atheist, he will always use his naturalistic/hedonistic lenses to view it. When you demonstrate that he can't even give an account for such basic non material things such as logic and absolutes, his arguments quickly crumble under their own weight.

For a more detailed look into this, check out Gregg Bahnsen's books.

[Perry]

For a more detailed look into this, check out Gregg Bahnsen's books.

Hi Brody,

You probably already know about this, but I found a treasure of Greg Bahnsen essays at this location. I've read several of his articles already and they are very thought provoking. Thanks for turning me on to him.

I think you are missing the thrust of the presuppositional approach.

One quick question. Do you feel the reasonings I've presented as a basis for morality in this thread are more evidential, or are they more presuppositional?

[brody196]

Hi Brody,

You probably already know about this, but I found a treasure of Greg Bahnsen essays at this location. I've read several of his articles already and they are very thought provoking. Thanks for turning me on to him

.

No problem brother!

One quick question. Do you feel the reasonings I've presented as a basis for morality in this thread are more evidential, or are they more presuppositional?

More pre-sup than evidential. You are presenting your apologetic from the basis of truth, namely that God does exist and without him as a starting point, you can't give a meaningful account for anything. The presuppositional approach is the only approach that I have found to be really effective in my personal witnessing. You can argue evidence with a sharp atheist all day long till you're blue in the face and they won't budge an inch, because of prior assumptions that they have no basis to lay hold on(Logic, morality, absolutes)..

Take our Buddhist friend Micheal who calls TNP every now and then. Steve has done an excellent job of refuting the various arguments that he has brought up, and yet he still calls every week with another argument to challenge Christian teaching. Why? I believe it is because of his prior assumptions regarding the nature of knowledge and how a person knows anything. His worldview can't give a consistent, logical basis for that sorta thing. Only the Christian God of scripture provides us with the necessary preconditions for knowledge, logic, morality, and absolutes.

[Perry]

Only the Christian God of scripture provides us with the necessary preconditions for knowledge, logic, morality, and absolutes.

The apologetic I've given would argue from an atheistic, to a theistic view. (Which was the title of the thread) I don't know that it would be very helpful in moving from there (i.e. theism) to Christian theism. If you're dealing with an atheist, that would be quite an accomplishment.

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

[brody196]

Only the Christian God of scripture provides us with the necessary preconditions for knowledge, logic, morality, and absolutes.

The apologetic I've given would argue from an atheistic, to a theistic view. (Which was the title of the thread) I don't know that it would be very helpful in moving from there (i.e. theism) to Christian theism. If you're dealing with an atheist, that would be quite an accomplishment.

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

I think that you are still missing the main point brother. I'll try to be as specific as possible, because it is a little tricky to grasp at first, at least it was for me.

The apologetic I've given would argue from an atheistic, to a theistic view.

Herein lies the problem. By starting at the atheistic point, you have already "shot yourself in the theological foot", because the only basis for logic, morality, rationality, and absolutes, lies within the framework of the triune God of scripture. He is the only source for the non-material things that give us a foundation from which to reason. So if you try and bypass the God from which these things(logic, etc)exist, then you have no basis to affirm anything. You enter the realm of randomness where you and the atheist can toss theories back and forth until kingdom comes, all because of the starting point.

God gives us all the necessary preconditions for "knowing" anything. Here is a website that gives a brief list of the scriptures that affirms all the necessary things that go into it..http://gracebibleny.org/presuppositiona ... ligibility

[Perry]

I think that you are still missing the main point brother... By starting at the atheistic point, you have already "shot yourself in the theological foot"

I don't think so... I've just communicated poorly. When I said, "The apologetic I've given would argue from an atheistic, to a theistic view" what I really meant was "The apologetic I've given can be used to move the atheist from his atheistic view to a theistic view." I'm don't think I'm starting from an atheistic point. Indeed, I don't even thin it's possible to start there, not even for the atheist. He thinks he is, but he has to lean on things like logic and rationality and consistent reality, none of which can exist outside a theistic framework. That's the whole presupposition.

On this point, I think we're pretty much agreed.

But I'm suggesting that only takes you as far as theism, and doesn't get you all the way to the "triune God of scripture". As I said, just bringing an atheist to theism would be quite an accomplishment, but there's still some way to go before you reach the God of scripture.

I'm going to scurry off now and read the article you linked.

[brody196]

I don't think so... I've just communicated poorly. When I said, "The apologetic I've given would argue from an atheistic, to a theistic view" what I really meant was "The apologetic I've given can be used to move the atheist from his atheistic view to a theistic view." I'm don't think I'm starting from an atheistic point. Indeed, I don't even thin it's possible to start there, not even for the atheist. He thinks he is, but he has to lean on things like logic and rationality and consistent reality, none of which can exist outside a theistic framework. That's the whole presupposition.

But that presup only works within the Christian framework! Other worldviews cannot account for any of the preconditions of rationality and that has to be demonstrated right from the start. The atheist has to borrow from our worldview to even try to defend his. The moment the atheist starts to speak, he is affirming the Christian God because he is using(unknowingly)the very framework that God created to reason on a meaningful basis. That is one of the big points of the presup apologetic.

On this point, I think we're pretty much agreed.

But I'm suggesting that only takes you as far as theism, and doesn't get you all the way to the "triune God of scripture". As I said, just bringing an atheist to theism would be quite an accomplishment, but there's still some way to go before you reach the God of scripture.

I don't follow that rationale at all. To reason the atheist from his atheism to theism, still does not paint the correct picture him, for there are many worldviews and false systems of religions. He has to be shown that, due to the impossibility of the contrary and the triune God that Jesus revealed, along with the witness of the prophets, is the basis for us "knowing" anything.

[Perry]

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.

The atheist has to borrow from our worldview to even try to defend his. The moment the atheist starts to speak, he is affirming the Christian God because he is using(unknowingly)the very framework that God created to reason on a meaningful basis. That is one of the big points of the presup apologetic.

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.

I don't follow that rationale at all.

… and that baffles me.

To reason the atheist from his atheism to theism, still does not paint the correct picture him, for there are many worldviews and false systems of religions.

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.