If Good and Evil Exist then God Exists

[EricFilmer]

You make a good point. When hearing it, the Atheist usually claims that altruism is an “error”, so to speak, in the human mind.

But why would that necessarily be the case? Most of the time, when we are compelled by some instinct to do something, it is accompanied by an emotional desire. perhaps altruism has stronger compulsion, but it does not have a correspondingly high level of desire.

That would be an interesting way of looking into this further. In any event, the phenomenon of how the conscience works suggests something beyond genetic impulses, especially if the conscience urges someone to select a weaker impulse over a stronger one. There may be (and probably are) some people who have a very strong sense of altruism, so there is nothing unusual if they put the needs of others over themselves and act accordingly. But this would not be the case with what seems to be the majority of accounts given by people who risk their lives for strangers. Many people describe personal safety being the stronger impulse, but then they grapple with their conscience which directs them to ultimately choose to act upon the weaker altruistic impulse.

Kreeft does indeed address them both, but only from the perspective of the atheist who believes both in their system of morality and in objective morality. very few atheists, in my experience, adopt both of these conflicting views.

It seems to me that this video is directed at people who profess belief in a subjective system of morality but either haven’t considered all the ramifications, or act as if there is an objective dimension of morality. There is, for example, a contradiction between saying that morality is entirely subjective and saying that things such as slaver are never morally acceptable. Once a person sees the points that Kreeft brings up, then a person has to abandon one of these positions.

That may have been what the video did for you, and that is exactly what Kreeft did, but those were not Kreeft’s intentions.

The first words in the video spelled out exactly what Kreeft intended from the video: “I intend to argue for the existence of God, from the premise that moral good and evil truly exist.” His intentions were not to provide us with some “food for thought.”, though that’s all he did in the end.

Kreeft did more than just provide “food for thought.” After all, there is a contradiction between proposing a subjective-only system of morality while appealing to objective moral norms. Moreover, if someone decides to believe in an objective dimension of morality, and there is no natural explanation for it, then one should look for a supernatural explanation.

Nevertheless, I do not believe that this video is flawless. One of the limitations is that a viewer who supports a subjective-only system of morality can conclude (in a rational manner) that there is no universal dimension to morality, and is content to embrace the ramifications of such a belief. For example, he may commit to refraining from proposing objective moral standards, such as saying that slavery and Nazi war crimes are never morally acceptable. The video does not actually make a case against such a conclusion, but instead addresses those who would reject it in favor of the belief that such things as slavery and Nazi war crimes are to be universally condemned.

As we both agree, the video did not show that God exists from those premises. It only showed that the idea of an objective morality is inconsistent both with our intuitive sense of morality and the non-existence of a moral lawgiver. Most atheists I’ve heard of agree with this. Which is why most atheists say that there is no objective moral law.

Since Kreeft is trying to show that God exists from good and evil, this must be his reasoning:

1. atheists believe in and have a sense of an objective moral law.
2. since everyone believes in an objective moral law, there must be a moral law.
3. since there is a moral law, there must be a source for this moral law,
4. none of the proposed physical sources for moral law can ultimately produce truly objective morality.
5. therefore, the source of objective moral law must be supernatural.

It seems clear that this proof is riddled with errors. The straw man fallacy occurs when he presents premise number 1. I think that so few atheists actually hold this position, that that number may as well be zero.

Many people, atheists and otherwise, often adopt certain beliefs but without considering the full ramifications of them. Therefore, Kreeft is not committing a straw man. I agree that there are probably zero atheists who openly declare, “I accept the contrary view that morality is entirely subjective while at the same time having an objective dimension”. But there certainly may be many atheists who profess belief in subjective morality while acting as if some type of objective morality exists. Kreeft shows that this is one of those, “You can’t eat your cake and have it too” situations. Basically what he’s doing is the Socratic Method, building upon certain beliefs that many people already embrace but who may not have considered that they can be contradictory.

By “ridiculous” I meant extremely improbable. If humans evolved to the point where slavery was no longer considered immoral, or actually increased overall well-being, than slavery would be moral, despite how we feel about it now. However, I think everyone can agree that both of these two scenarios are very unlikely, and certainly hasn’t occurred yet.

Nevertheless, utilitarianism does not allow a person to make a universal judgment such as “Slaver is never acceptable.”

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

One of the more unsettling things about our view of morality is that it seems to hold that everyone has the same innate sense of what is moral and what is not. Indeed, if there were an objective morality, we would consider this to be the case. If it is true, it is far from evident by looking at various world cultures. Some of the actions that Catholics consider wrong, and therefore wrong by a universal morality, are not seen as wrong in other cultures.

Those societies were not following a utilitarian morality, and probably were not following any particular morality at all. They were motivated by greed and increased economic value, not any particular morality. The same question could be asked of objective morality. If there is an objective morality, why don’t all cultures subscribe to this morality?

There are differences between the moral norms expressed among various cultures, but these differences are slight. This fact does not rule out the existence of objective morality. Consider the exchange between Trurl and me in this thread, starting with Post #20. In particular, I ask that you take into consideration the quote I presented from C.S. Lewis in Post #24

The only system of morality these societies had(at least to my knowledge) was “might makes right” or perhaps some sort of divine command theory of morality.

The point is that a purely subjective system of morality cannot rule out the possibility of such a situation repeating itself in the future.

These people would have had the same conscience as we do. the 6,000 years since the dawn of human civilization would not be enough to make any sort of significant changes in our ingrained idea of morality. Thus, from the point of view of the person who subscribes to a evolved conscience source of morality, the conscience has not had sufficient time to evolve, and the acts of ancient civilizations were just as immoral then as they are today.

At this point the distinction should be made between an “evolved” conscience and a “developed” conscience. For example, Christianity believes in a developed conscience, meaning that morality is learned and built upon from generation to generation. But this also appeals to an objective morality which is gradually revealed to humanity, the fullness of which comes through Christ and the guidance he gives his Church. Therefore, one can condemn immoral actions of the past by claiming that we know better, and we make statements such as slavery being never acceptable.

An evolution-based system of morality by definition means that moral norms are in a state of constant change. There is no objective direction; we are not learning morality from a teacher or any other kind of objective norm. Therefore what we consider good today may not be good tomorrow. The same can be said of evil.

Once again, I will repeat that Peter Kreeft did indeed intend to prove That God exists from the premise that moral good and evil truly exist. The name of this thread is “If moral good and evil exist, than God exists.” I think that states the point pretty clearly.

You have provided (in Post #101) a five-point outline showing the process he used to draw his conclusion, but the only objection you raised concerned Point #1. I have now explained how Kreeft did not resort to a straw man therein.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I was talking about in our world. If God had decided not to create anything, then only good would exist. Once he decided to create the angels and man, and gave them wills, evil became necessary.

God Bless

No. Then evil became a possibility, not a necessity. The Blessed Virgin did not sin so she proves that evil was not a necessity. And had Adam and Eve not sinned, evil would not have existed in the human race.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

evil is the privation of good that should have been.

A thought.

True but most of the folks here are not that deep into St. Thomas, so why don’t we just stick to " evil? "

 

[Linusthe2nd]

In the OP video, Kreef’s argument on slavery is pure relativism - he doesn’t like it so it must be wrong. His reasoning throughout is inane, it’s as if he took a bet to commit every fallacy in the book. Is he always that infantile?

I’m kind of starting over on this to see where some went wrong. I don’t see the logical errors you see. He simply pointed out that slavery, while accepted or tolerated in many societies and in many different time periods, was never acceptable. And this proves that slavery was an act against the moral law at all times. And if there is a moral law that ought to be obeyed at all times, and since such a law cannot be derived from Evolution, Conscience, Reason, Human Nature, or Utilitarianism, this proves that there the law giver must exist outside our physical universe, that it would seem to be God. Therefore God Exists.

The only way you can fault his argument is to say there is no act which is objectively Good or objectively Evil, that there is no moral law which should be the norm of moral behavior at all times. But of course this would make life intolerable ( which is a point Kreeft did not make in the video.

I showed in post # 99 I gave an example of an objectively evil act to which all but the deranged would agree. We can point to many others. The Holocaust for example, any form of genicide, fratracide, matricide, etc.

The point is where objectively Good and Evil exists, implies a moral law that has binding force which applies to all people at all times. Such a moral law can come only from God.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Well, I’m not sure this is the point of this thread. I think Kreeft is making an argument for the existence of objective morality which leads many to conclude that there is a divine Creator behind it. Once again, this is what happened to C.S. Lewis in the process of his conversion from atheism to Christianity. I don’t think this thread is really saying that other kinds of morality are impossible, only that such theories do not seem to square with what most humans embrace in terms of moral principles (such as the condemnation of slavery and Nazi war crimes).

Right. Kreeft shows that the arguments for a moral code as proposed by any of the systems atheists propose are non-binding since they change from system to system and from culture to culture and from time to time. And while he doesn’t say so, life would be intolerable under any of these systems.

But since all cultures over the span of history have recognized a binding moral code ( do good and avoid evil), this demands a law giver beyond our universe with the authority to impose these demands - and this is God).

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Unfortunately you keep making the same logic errors as the video! The fallacies in the slavery section include:

• argumentum ad populam – supposing an objective truth is affected by popular opinion
• circular argument – arguing slavery is objectively immoral because it’s unacceptable, and unacceptable because it’s objectively immoral :whacky:
• hasty generalization – supposing no one today accepts slavery, when most buy clothing and electronics made on slave wages (plus you said that states like Georgia sponsor forced labor a.k.a. slavery)
• bandwagon – supposing that contemporary mass opinion is more objective than past opinion
• false dichotomy – asserting that the only moral choices are slavery is objectively or not objectively acceptable when it could be subjective.

In addition, although I know it’s not your intention, I feel like you’re attempting a proof by verbosity (an argument too verbose for me to reasonably deal with in full), as you typed over 12,000 characters in this group of four posts. If I miss points, it’s only to avoid death by exhaustion.

But he ignores the plank in his eye by criticizing another’s argument while ignoring the faults in his own.

Special pleading fallacy, forced labor is slavery by a different name.

CCC 2414 It is a sin against the dignity of persons and their fundamental rights to reduce them by violence to their productive value or to a source of profit. Change the term from “forced labor” to “forced sex” and you’ll see that the violence implied by “forced” is slavery.

You’re special pleading. Read the verse – “as for the women, the children, … you may take these as plunder for yourselves”. To plunder means to steal things violently, the women and children are treated not as persons but as things to be violently stolen and used.

How precisely does God reveal love by ordering ethnic cleansing and slavery? I’ve never heard this “gradual moral revelation” theory before. It sounds irrational - please use it to justify 1 Samuel 15, where it’s an evil sin even to leave one infant alive.

Why ignore the obvious, that the author is misusing the name of God to justify crimes against humanity?

Talk about " proof by verbocity. " I am wore out just trying to read all this!!!

Peter made no errors, period !!! The march of history has shown that all cultures have recognized a morally binding code of morals, though they were often confused as to its exact application. They were also confused in that their only guiding principle was " …do good and avoid evil…" Even so the degree of agreement amongst all peoples is remarkable. It is only since the Age of Enlightenment that we have seen the arrival of strange " sources " of codes of morality.

Peter shows that only one imposed by Divine Authority has binding force and this accounts for the general agreement throughout history of a binding moral code. And this code is identified roughly with the natural moral law which man arrives at through the application of his reasoning powers to his life and surroundings, and as member of society, as a political animal, and as a family member.

And while he does not mention it, this binding force is evident by the " prick " of conscience when one disobeys the moral code. You can’t explain that away, though many have tried.

 

[inocente]

I’m kind of starting over on this to see where some went wrong. I don’t see the logical errors you see. He simply pointed out that slavery, while accepted or tolerated in many societies and in many different time periods, was never acceptable. And this proves that slavery was an act against the moral law at all times. And if there is a moral law that ought to be obeyed at all times, and since such a law cannot be derived from Evolution, Conscience, Reason, Human Nature, or Utilitarianism, this proves that there the law giver must exist outside our physical universe, that it would seem to be God. Therefore God Exists.

Either you are correct and Kreeft has produced the first perfect argument for the existence of God in the entire history of the world, or there are faults in his argument. Which do you think is the most likely?

The only way you can fault his argument is to say there is no act which is objectively Good or objectively Evil, that there is no moral law which should be the norm of moral behavior at all times. But of course this would make life intolerable ( which is a point Kreeft did not make in the video.

Well no, anyone trained in logic can fault his argument in lots of ways. And just because you think something would make your life intolerable doesn’t make it go away.

I showed in post # 99 I gave an example of an objectively evil act to which all but the deranged would agree. We can point to many others. The Holocaust for example, any form of genicide, fratracide, matricide, etc.

It’s easy to point to things we’re all agreed on and say, aah, that means there must be objective morality, not so easy when an issue is controversial, like gun ownership. Are drone strikes objectively moral or immoral? Do you believe that when God said “Let there be light”, He also ordained the objective morality of drone strikes ready for a country named America on a planet orbiting one of trillions of stars 13 billion year’s later?

Or do you think that the bible is correct that the only moral law is love (Mark 12:29-31), and God wants us to wrestle out the rest for ourselves?

The point is where objectively Good and Evil exists, implies a moral law that has binding force which applies to all people at all times. Such a moral law can come only from God.

There have been lots of threads on objective morality and none of them managed to prove it. Do a search and have a look at them.

 

[inocente]

Talk about " proof by verbocity. " I am wore out just trying to read all this!!!

It was 350 words, what is your problem? Seriously, what are you on about, how could I have answered in fewer words?

Peter made no errors, period !!! The march of history has shown that all cultures have recognized a morally binding code of morals, though they were often confused as to its exact application. They were also confused in that their only guiding principle was " …do good and avoid evil…" Even so the degree of agreement amongst all peoples is remarkable. It is only since the Age of Enlightenment that we have seen the arrival of strange " sources " of codes of morality.

I see. So you’re saying the South didn’t have any bibles and that’s why they kept slaves, and segregation 50 years ago in America was because you guys were confused but now you’re suddenly admirably clear headed? Basically then, rewrite history to make it fit your theories. No wonder you’re such a fan of Kreeft

*Peter shows that only one imposed by Divine Authority has binding force and this accounts for the general agreement throughout history of a binding moral code. And this code is identified roughly with the natural moral law which man arrives at through the application of his reasoning powers to his life and surroundings, and as member of society, as a political animal, and as a family member. *

Get 30 atheists to watch the video and see if any of them agree with you.

And while he does not mention it, this binding force is evident by the " prick " of conscience when one disobeys the moral code. You can’t explain that away, though many have tried.

Talk about " proof by verbocity. " I am wore out just trying to read all this!!!

 

[Linusthe2nd]

You claim that Peter made errors in his argument. I think you analysis is wrong. The validity of his argument does not depend on whether Atheists are convinced by it. Nor is it weakened by the fact that certain groups did not view slavery or any other practice acceptable at one time, while we view it as evil now. For these practices were engaged in because of an error in reasoning or because of the corruption of society at particular times in particular places.

The point is that there is in history a recognition of a basic Moral Law which all men are obliged to obey. This speaks to the necessity of a Law Giver with the authority to oblige all men to obey. Such an authority can only be the one we call God.

You object to this for reasons I disagree with, I think you are wrong. If there is no such Law Giver, then we are reduced to mere Human Convention which can compel obedience only through the overbearing use of force. We may obey but obedience will not give us any sense of moral satisfaction and disobedience will not " prick " our conscience.

On the other hand, obedience to a Moral Law commanded by God will bring a sense moral satisfaction and disobedience will " prick " our conscience. We thus obey through a motive of love rather than fear of reprisal ( here and now). And if we do disobey, we know we can be totally forgiven through repentance - and this is not possible in disobedience to laws of human convention. Man does not forgive so easily, God does.

 

[zro_x]

@ eric filmer

some good stuff. I’ll try to reply to you after New Year’s. In the meantime, Merry Christmas!

 

[inocente]

The point is that there is in history a recognition of a basic Moral Law which all men are obliged to obey. This speaks to the necessity of a Law Giver with the authority to oblige all men to obey. Such an authority can only be the one we call God.

I think possibly we have different conceptions of God. The law is love your neighbor as yourself (Luke 10:27), and how we do it is for us to wrestle out (Romans 2:15). So I don’t think God has a detailed moral code written down, that’s for us to work out, and God’s test is how well we love.

The problem for me with most modern apologetics is they seem embarrassed or unable to speak of love, and instead try to justify belief with these dry, hypothetical, and (often) convoluted philosophical arguments. But when a lost soul comes looking for help, you don’t feed them philosophical arguments, instead you find out what they need and help them, and then they see that they too can be part of our community, and the community is worthwhile, and Christ is the head. No justification or philosophy needed, all we need is love.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I think possibly we have different conceptions of God. The law is love your neighbor as yourself (Luke 10:27), and how we do it is for us to wrestle out (Romans 2:15). So I don’t think God has a detailed moral code written down, that’s for us to work out, and God’s test is how well we love.

The problem for me with most modern apologetics is they seem embarrassed or unable to speak of love, and instead try to justify belief with these dry, hypothetical, and (often) convoluted philosophical arguments. But when a lost soul comes looking for help, you don’t feed them philosophical arguments, instead you find out what they need and help them, and then they see that they too can be part of our community, and the community is worthwhile, and Christ is the head. No justification or philosophy needed, all we need is love.

And I agree with you absolutely. But we are human beings with a rational nature. As Thomas Aquinas explains we use our intellects to discover how to live properly so as to reach our final good, union with the Almighty. God has provided us with an innate awareness of the first principle of proper moral behavior, do good and avoid evil. It is our intellect which instinctively recognizes this principle at about the age of 7 years.

All cultures have stumbled along arriving by fits and starts at a rough apporximation of the Natural Law which includes a recognition of the Law of Love in its fullness. Although they were unable to recognize it in those terms. The Greeks - Socrates, Plato, Aristotle - came closest.

Then came Revelation, and Moses revealed the Natural Law, which is the Law of Love spelled out according to the Second Principles of the Natural Law, given by God as a Moral Law. But then came Christ who summerized the Moral Law in his brief command, " … Love the Lord your God with your whole heart, mind, and body and your neighbor as yourself…"

So this summarizing of the Moral Law would include the Natural Law. But how to carry out the Law of Love concretely was not spelled out entirely. It would include of course the Sermon on the Mount. But all the details were still left to man and the Church to discover the precise good to be done and what evil to be avoided. But with Christ came grace working actively in man to discover and do this good.

And to this day grace still works to arrive at the Law of Love as it is to be carried at all times. You see this Law will never be perfected in this life, it is something we constantly strive for. But we know it is there and that it is obligatory and we do indeed know many of its detailed manifestations. With these, as building blocks, we constantly advance to a certain perfection. Therefore, we know God exists.

I certainly recognize your insistance on the Law of Love. But it is nothing more than the Natural Moral Law carried to perfection.

I think we believe in the same God alright. That has never been the problem.

 

[EricFilmer]

In addition, although I know it’s not your intention, I feel like you’re attempting a proof by verbosity (an argument too verbose for me to reasonably deal with in full), as you typed over 12,000 characters in this group of four posts. If I miss points, it’s only to avoid death by exhaustion.

I’m going to go out of sequence for a moment and start with this comment. Regardless of the number of characters I typed, all I have done is given a point-by-point refutation to the material that you brought up. None of my individual replies were lengthy, and none contained information that was not relevant to the discussion. Moreover, my use of examples to illustrate my points was sparse. To use a quote you made to Linusthe2nd, “Seriously, what are you on about, how could I have answered in fewer words?” In light of all this, I have not resorted to proof of verbosity, either intentionally or unintentionally. If you still claim otherwise then clearly demonstrate it by indicating the post or cut & paste a section from my material showing me using proof of verbosity rather than a proper, relevant response.

Unfortunately you keep making the same logic errors as the video!

There are many people who profess belief in something but without considering the full ramifications of the belief, or act in ways contrary to it. For example, professing belief in a subjective system of morality (i.e., evolution) while appealing to objective morality (i.e., saying things like, “Slavery is never acceptable”). Kreeft is basically using the Socratic Method to show that such people cannot “have their cake and eat it to.” There is absolutely no logical fallacy involved in which both sides of a debate agree upon a certain premise and build upon it. In terms of a video like this, there will be viewers who disagree with the premise and therefore the presented material’s application to them will be limited (although may still be valuable in the end if they continue listening). But there will also be viewers who agree with the premise.

In this case, the premise is the belief that such things as slavery and Nazi war crimes are considered immoral and never acceptable. Because such beliefs are so widespread, it is reasonable for Kreeft to presume that the majority of the viewers will accept these as examples of immoral behavior without taking the time to give a thorough philosophical / social explanation as to why they are evil.

The fallacies in the slavery section include:

argumentum ad populam – supposing an objective truth is affected by popular opinion

This is not a video which debates the morality of slavery. The immorality of slavery is presented as an agreed upon premise. Kreeft only appeals to popular opinion to set a premise which is already widely agreed upon by people watching the video. Furthermore, he does not “suppose” an objective truth, but points out the contradiction between professing a subjective truth and belief in the popular opinion. It is certainly not a fallacy for Kreeft to appeal to the Law of Non-Contradiction.

circular argument – arguing slavery is objectively immoral because it’s unacceptable, and unacceptable because it’s objectively immoral :whacky:

Once again, slavery is simply presented as an agreed upon premise. Kreeft’s argument is that a proposed subjective system of morality cannot be the basis for making universal, objective moral judgments, such as “Slavery is never acceptable.” There is no circular reasoning involved here.

hasty generalization – supposing no one today accepts slavery, when most buy clothing and electronics made on slave wages (plus you said that states like Georgia sponsor forced labor a.k.a. slavery)

Also:

So it’s OK to buy cheap clothes and electronics knowing they were made on slave wages, because the companies behind the brand names don’t ask their suppliers too many questions?

Kreeft does not suppose that “no one today accepts slavery”. The whole video recognizes that throughout much of human history, slavery was “accepted.” But clearly today the vast majority of people believe that it is unacceptable, forcing people who impose slavery to do so in secrecy. People promoting slavery are motivated by greed and corruption, but I have yet to hear anyone today arguing that slavery is actually moral, even from those who run sweat shops.

Concerning slave wages, even if people buy things produced under a system of slave wages, this does not mean that the consumer thinks that slave wages, in and of itself, is morally acceptable.

Concerning the labor provided by inmates, I already mentioned that they are working off a debt they owe to society; criminal behavior costs tax payers tons of money. And if all forced labor constitutes slavery then parents making their children do chores is slavery, as is the government’s requirement for people to submit income statements.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

bandwagon – supposing that contemporary mass opinion is more objective than past opinion

I’m not sure what you mean in terms of how you’ve defined the bandwagon fallacy. In any event, see my above comments concerning argumentum ad populam.

false dichotomy – asserting that the only moral choices are slavery is objectively or not objectively acceptable when it could be subjective.

Subjective morality is still a viable conclusion a person can make when watching this video. Kreeft simply points out that it cannot support beliefs based upon appeals to objective morality. There is no false dichotomy here.

But he ignores the plank in his eye by criticizing another’s argument while ignoring the faults in his own.

He is criticizing the other arguments based on the Law of Non-Contradiction. Even if he committed logical fallacies in this video, the fact remains that a subjective system of morality does not logical support making appeals to universal, objective morality.

Special pleading fallacy, forced labor is slavery by a different name.

CCC 2414 It is a sin against the dignity of persons and their fundamental rights to reduce them by violence to their productive value or to a source of profit. Change the term from “forced labor” to “forced sex” and you’ll see that the violence implied by “forced” is slavery.

Also:

Your state thinks slavery is moral and your Church doesn’t; get them to argue it out.

Also:

But it’s not universally condemned, your own state proves that!

Are you seriously trying to argue for a moral equivalency between the slavery that was practiced in the post-Civil War era U.S. and the labor imposed upon inmates in the modern U.S.? Are you seriously accusing me of the special pleading fallacy for making a distinction between the two? If so, then that should be a forum discussion in and of itself, and we should take this particular aspect of our discussion to CAF’s Moral Theology forum and hash it out there.

You’re special pleading. Read the verse – “as for the women, the children, … you may take these as plunder for yourselves”. To plunder means to steal things violently, the women and children are treated not as persons but as things to be violently stolen and used.

Which is exactly what the other ancient civilizations did at the time. But, unlike with the Jews, the other civilizations did not provide legal protection for slaves, did not punish slave-owners for the mistreatment of slaves, and allowed for the open practice of slave trade. Let me ask you this, if you were a slave in the ancient world, would you have rather been in Israel or one of the pagan kingdoms?

How precisely does God reveal love by ordering ethnic cleansing and slavery? I’ve never heard this “gradual moral revelation” theory before.

It’s called progressive revelation. Most Christian Churches and denominations accept this principle, at least to some degree or another. For example, the concept of dispensationalism taught by evangelicals is a variation of progressive revelation. For a Catholic explanation of progressive revelation, see this section of the catechism.

It sounds irrational - please use it to justify 1 Samuel 15, where it’s an evil sin even to leave one infant alive.

Responses from isitinthebible.com

Why ignore the obvious, that the author is misusing the name of God to justify crimes against humanity?

Situation: Christians sometimes encounter difficult passages in the Bible.

Response #1: Presume that certain humans circumvented Divine Providence to fabricate parts of the Bible in order to turn it into a tool for promoting deviant human behavior contrary to the will of God.

Response #2: Trust in God’s revelation in Sacred Scripture, understanding that God’s ways are beyond our ways, and that we don’t have a comprehensive understanding of the full historical context, and we are not capable of ever having a full comprehensive understanding of the mind of God. Difficult biblical passages are an opportunity to exercise the virtue of faith in God’s revelation.

Christians can decide for themselves which of these two is the one to embrace.

A Baptist principle is that we are all competent before God to make our own moral, spiritual and religious decisions, so there is no single authorized theology.

But how do Baptists specifically define the morality of slavery? Is it simply based on individual opinion?

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

Oh! So CCC 65 & 66 are wrong to say Christ is the “MEDIATOR AND FULLNESS OF ALL REVELATION” and “God has said everything in his Word” and “There will be no further Revelation”?

Where’s the contradiction? Catholics believe that the Public Revelation of God (i.e., what is intended for the universal Church to know) is contained within the Apostolic Deposit of Faith, including both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Revelation was completed by Christ and the Holy Spirit working through the Apostolic Church. The moral teachings of the Church are based on the Deposit of Faith, addressing specific issues for each generation that did not exist in apostolic times.

You’ll see the problem then. Jesus said nothing about it and the commandment doesn’t even mention slavery.

The moral teachings of the Church are the teachings of Christ who is the head of the Church.

As I said, false dilemma, and also there’s no evidential way to distinguish between a developing and an evolving morality.

I explained the distinction with a math example in Post #110. Math stems from objective truth but it is gradually taught to math students. Therefore, knowledge of math does not evolve, at least not in terms of how the concept of evolution is used in this discussion. It is the same thing with the development of moral teachings.

False dilemma. What’s important is fighting injustice, not ivory tower debates about whether some hypothetical future generation will care about our opinions on what is objective.

Considering the basis of morality is not a “false dilemma.” During the Civil War in the U.S., both the North and the South considered themselves to be “fighting injustice” but disagreed over exactly what was just and unjust. Obviously there is more to morality than simply a compulsion to fight injustice.

Nope. The UDHR doesn’t. Again, false dilemma.

The UDHR most certainly does. You quoted the UDHR as being based upon the Golden Rule, stating “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” This is an appeal to a universal, objective moral standard, even if the UDHR doesn’t mention a source for this moral code. After all, are there any cultures or generations that the UDHR thinks the Golden Rule is (or was) not applicable to?

Please cite where Kreeft says that’s the purpose of the video.

It’s not clearly cited, but is drawn from the process he uses and conclusions that he makes. Please cite where Kreeft says or even implies that the purpose of the video is to examine slavery and deduce the morality of it.

I already did - the Golden Rule.

An evolution-only system of morality does not allow for the formulation of the Golden Rule. Using the definition of the Golden Rule you provided from the UDHR, it is applicable to “all humans”. If that is the case, and it stems from evolution (which is a state of ongoing change) then there can theoretically be a time when the Golden Rule was not applicable, or only applicable to some humans, and such a non-existent or limited application may be the case again in the future. If, however, the Golden Rule is applicable to all humans of all generations then obviously it cannot have its origins in an ever changing system of morality (for the simple fact that the Golden Rule neither reflects nor allows for change).

No, you’ve shown that fans have a cognitive bias.

Sure, I have a bias in favor of Kreeft, being a fan of his books. But that doesn’t mean that my critique of your material is not rational and objective. Can you actually point to something that I posted that shows otherwise?

I’ve labelled the main fallacies now…

You didn’t show Kreeft committing fallacies in terms of the video that he made, but rather the fallacies you listed were a way of criticizing him for not making the video that you think he ought to have made. For example, rather than using the evil of slavery as a common-ground agreed premise, you think that he should first have proven that slavery is evil. Maybe this would have made for a more comprehensive video (and a very long one at that) but it is not a logical necessity for him to have done so.

…but have said before I’m happy to quote from a transcript but don’t have the time to write one. You’re the one who wants it, why don’t you email Kreef and ask - his contact details are public, just google.

As I have clearly stated before, I never said that you had to write the whole transcript. A person doesn’t have to either create or refer to an entire transcript to come up with two or three quotes from a debate. There is nothing I presented in my challenge to you from Post #58 that necessitates an entire transcript. Moreover, in terms of the discussion on evolution and the slavery example, I’ve already provided the transcript in this thread. So why is there such a persistent refusal on your part to examine what Kreeft actually said in his own words?

You missed my point. Evil is just a word but Kreeft wants us to commits a reification fallacy – a belief that evil exists as some kind of entity or substance.

He never said that evil is either an entity or a substance. Good, however, is a ultimately an entity, God. Does this amount to reification?

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

Accusing me of dodging is uncalled for.

Lest you or anyone else deems me unfair, I will back up by “dodging” assessment. In Post #45 you stated that you are a former atheist and then criticized Kreeft’s video because atheists “don’t necessarily view good and evil as anything more than words. So the premise relies on a fabrication.”

I wanted to test the merits of this belief that the terms “good” and “evil” are meaningless fabrications, and that atheists have a more realistic grasp than Christians do in this regard. So in Post #57 I came up with three questions designed to put this belief to the test.

Question #1 regarded what an atheist means by the term “good person” when saying, “I don’t have to be religious in order to be a good person.” Your response from Post #74 was that atheists define “good” and “evil” in the manner that a common dictionary does, and that a good person is a “moral person”, all of which is exactly what Christians (including Kreeft) mean by such terms. Therefore, in Post #113 I asked you to clarify the distinction that exists between how atheists and Christians perceive the terms “good” and “evil.” Your replied in Post #118 that “evil is just a word.” Ok, and according to what you said earlier, it is a word with the same definition that Christians use. So, once again, where is the distinction? Where is the “meaningless fabrication”?

Question #2 regarded what atheists mean by “evil” when they cite the “problem of evil” as the basis for their disbelief in God. In Post #74 you stated that this was not an atheist argument. In Post #113 I gave a link proving that this is, indeed, an atheist argument. I then asked you to once more answer this question. In Post #118 you skipped it entirely.

Question #3 regarded the hypothetical situation regarding an atheist named Wilfred. You replied (in Post #74) “How should I know?” Hence, you’re knowledgeable enough about atheism when it comes to criticizing Kreeft’s video, but then suddenly you’re not knowledgeable when it comes to answering my questions. So, how is all this not dodging?

It should be plain obvious that most people regard good and evil as abstracts and don’t make the mistake of reifying them.

I don’t know if reifying is a correct term as to what I (and Kreeft) have been doing. The question is, do the terms “good” & “evil” (as understood by Christians) accurately depict real-life situations? If they do, then it’s not reification. If they do not then use the Wilfred example to show how these terms are lacking or non-applicable.

Why are you asking me to hypothesize about what hypothetical atheists think about hypothetical situations? Surely you have enough empathy to work it out for yourself?

There seems to be one of two different things going on here:

Belief #1) Declaring that the terms “good” and “evil” are meaningless fabrications (concerning abstract principles) is simply a “cop out” statement. People resort to this declaration to avoid examining the validity of the existence of good and evil which could contradict their notions of reality. They avoid putting this declared concept to the test because, deep down, they believe that it would fail.

Belief #2) Declaring that the terms “good” and “evil” are meaningless fabrications (concerning abstract principles) is a truthful statement. This concept can be put to the test and be validated.

If Belief #1 accurately describes the situation concerning atheists then it represents an irrational mindset. In this case, it should not be brought it as a rational criticism of Kreeft’s video.

If Belief #2 accurately describes the situation concerning atheists then it is a rational argument, and likewise a proper criticism of Kreeft’s video. But this means that it can also be put to the test and pass, a test like the one I designed concerning Wildred. I have put it to the test (using the empathy you mentioned) and concluded that the atheist outlook on the two actions described would match the Christian outlook (at least in terms of the common dictionary definition of morality). Both would ascribe a moral dimension to these situations and label the actions “good” and “evil” respectively. Simply put, it fails the test. Consequently, Belief #2 does not correspond with reality and therefore, like Belief #1, it cannot be a rational criticism of Kreeft’s video. If you disagree with how I worked this out then use the Wilfred example to show where I went wrong, or come up with your own example.

This is called the Nirvana fallacy: a refusal to accept an argument unless it meets an idealized standard.

This is a philosophical debate on a philosophy forum, where it is recognized that fallacies have names and they have formulas. You have repeatedly accused Kreeft of making fallacies, and I have undertaken the task of show that he has not. In a debate it is incumbent upon the person making the positive claim (i.e., “Kreeft commits fallacies”) to demonstrate it. In light of all this, I stated “Clearly demonstrate in this forum that Kreeft committed just one logical fallacy (while naming the exact fallacy involved and giving him the courtesy of illustrating this with actual quotes he made) and I will concede the point.”

Now, according to you, if someone says, “Kreeft makes logical fallacies” and I say, “Name one of these fallacies and clearly show how he did it and I’ll agree with you” then I am resorting to the Nirvana Fallacy. Ok, then tell me exactly how one goes about proving that a person commits a logical fallacy. How does your definition differ from my “idealized standard”?

 

[inocente]

I’m going to go out of sequence for a moment and start with this comment. Regardless of the number of characters I typed, all I have done is given a point-by-point refutation to the material that you brought up. None of my individual replies were lengthy, and none contained information that was not relevant to the discussion. Moreover, my use of examples to illustrate my points was sparse. To use a quote you made to Linusthe2nd, “Seriously, what are you on about, how could I have answered in fewer words?” In light of all this, I have not resorted to proof of verbosity, either intentionally or unintentionally. If you still claim otherwise then clearly demonstrate it by indicating the post or cut & paste a section from my material showing me using proof of verbosity rather than a proper, relevant response.

Well, that was 140 words which could have been edited down. I think you must have an army of elves doing your typing.

We must bring this to a conclusion, we’re repeating ourselves and obviously won’t reach agreement. I’ll therefore confine my comments to explanation and let you have the last word on everything else.

 

[inocente]

I’m not sure what you mean in terms of how you’ve defined the bandwagon fallacy. In any event, see my above comments concerning argumentum ad populam.

The standard definitions of each fallacy are in the links I provided.

Subjective morality is still a viable conclusion a person can make when watching this video. Kreeft simply points out that it cannot support beliefs based upon appeals to objective morality. There is no false dichotomy here.

You refuse in this post to accept that Kreeft has committed any errors whatsoever, which means you must believe he has made the first ever perfect argument for the existence of God. If this is so, your churches will overflow with converts convinced by Kreeft’s perfect argument, but I’d caution don’t hold your breath.

Are you seriously trying to argue for a moral equivalency between the slavery that was practiced in the post-Civil War era U.S. and the labor imposed upon inmates in the modern U.S.? Are you seriously accusing me of the special pleading fallacy for making a distinction between the two? If so, then that should be a forum discussion in and of itself, and we should take this particular aspect of our discussion to CAF’s Moral Theology forum and hash it out there.

I think you meant pre- not post-civil war. If you want to start a thread, the article I linked in post #72 might be good for the OP. Perhaps there’s a wider issue - as the article says, “with less than 5 percent of the world population, the U.S. imprisons more than 25 percent of all people imprisoned in the world”.

But this is first and foremost a question for Americans to debate and I’m not in America so I don’t generally take part in such threads.

*Let me ask you this, if you were a slave in the ancient world, would you have rather been in Israel or one of the pagan kingdoms? *

Good grief.

It’s called progressive revelation. Most Christian Churches and denominations accept this principle, at least to some degree or another. For example, the concept of dispensationalism taught by evangelicals is a variation of progressive revelation. For a Catholic explanation of progressive revelation, see this section of the catechism.

Yes, progressive revelation of God, but I’ve still never heard of your idea of progressive revelation of morality. In any case I can’t see how you imagine that has anything at all to do with God ordering ethnic cleansing and slavery.

Responses from isitinthebible.com

Good grief 2.

But how do Baptists specifically define the morality of slavery? Is it simply based on individual opinion?

The Spirit.

 

[inocente]

I wanted to test the merits of this belief that the terms “good” and “evil” are meaningless fabrications, and that atheists have a more realistic grasp than Christians do in this regard.

You’ve misunderstood what I said, and I can’t think of a way to make it clearer.

Question #2 regarded what atheists mean by “evil” when they cite the “problem of evil” as the basis for their disbelief in God. In Post #74 you stated that this was not an atheist argument. In Post #113 I gave a link proving that this is, indeed, an atheist argument. I then asked you to once more answer this question. In Post #118 you skipped it entirely.

:banghead: The argument was not invented by atheists. The problem of evil is an age old theological problem of trying to reconcile a loving God with the presence of evil in the world. Those who can’t reconcile the two tend to become atheists. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

There seems to be one of two different things going on here:

Eric, I think you’re now wandering down garden paths of your own making.

Let’s stop there. In summary some folk think the video is neat and others don’t. Good to talk to you.