Tuesday, January 05, 2010

Quote of the Day by Tim Keller

Tim Keller was recently on the White Horse Inn discussing his book, The Reason For God.
There's a philosophical answer to the problem of evil, and that is if you have a God big enough to be mad at for not stopping evil, then you have a God big enough to have reasons why He hasn't stopped evil that you can't conceive of.

In other words, if you got a God who is that infinite that He's big enough that you're mad at Him for not stopping it, then He's got to be able to have reasons for letting these things go that you can't think of. You can't have it both ways.
Listen here.

25 comments:

David B. Ellis said...

Are you willing to actually use that sort of logic consistently?

Suppose, for example, that God appeared to you and claimed that torturing children solely for his Divine Amusement is morally right---that you as a mere human are simply not capable of recognizing this Great Moral Truth because you do not have his infinite wisdom.

I suspect you would rather heartily disagree (even if, understandably, you were too afraid to openly contradict an omnipotent sadist).

And I suspect, as well, that you would be entirely justified in that opinion.

Howard Fisher said...

Howdy Mr. Ellis,

First, I want to say that your artistic talent is simply fantastic. You are an obviously talented man. I only wish I had a 1/10 of your gift.

1) As for your criticism, this is a common objection that has nothing to do with the original argument. I am surprised someone of your caliber would use it.

If you listen to the program, Keller wasn't trying to make this point the be end all argument. It was just a point to consider that if one is going to argue that God doesn't exist because, then....

2) "Are you willing to actually use that sort of logic consistently?"

Based with my presuppositions and not yours, yes.

3) "Suppose, for example, that God appeared to you and claimed that torturing children solely for his Divine Amusement is morally right"

Who ever argued this in the first place. We are talking about the evil actions of men. Why would God allow or ordain such actions may be above our understanding or knowledge.

4) In your torture example, you seem to be appealing to a transcendent morality. How would you know that what God did was wrong unless God exists to provide the law within your heart and mind?

In other words, you are borrowing from my worldview to make yours work in order to say my position is wrong. That is irrational.

5) Again, perhaps we could point to the cross. In one event, we have God ordaining the death of Christ. We have the Son desiring to go to the cross and satisfy the justice of God. And yet we have evil men literally torturing Jesus with evil intentions.

Simply because everyone had no idea why Jesus was doing what He was doing, did that mean Jesus was irrational. Men have evil in their hearts. Men do things because of the evil nature. God does things out of His holiness. The two are compatible.

6) "that you as a mere human are simply not capable of recognizing this Great Moral Truth because you do not have his infinite wisdom."

You are an artist of first rate. As the creator of such wonderful paintings, surely you must see the difference between you and that which is the result of your work.

Also, we are arguing that the Creator may have purposes that He has not explained to us. Simply because we do not know why things happen doesn't mean they have no purpose. Are you arguing for purposeless evil?

Why is it that people who struggle the most, see the truths of God much more clearly than those who do not.

Perhaps this is more intuitive, but, recently on Christmas Eve, when I had to carry a dying child, doing CPR, suffering with the family as the child died, I learned more about God than being merely an egg-head in the ivory towers of academia.

I have read an account of a man who gave up everything to serve a mentally retarded man and live with him and take care of him. He learned much about God during that time of his life.

My son has been puking for 2 days and looooong nights. There is something about suffering with him that I see our humanity all the more clearly and God in all of His glory.

In conclusion, it is the theology of the cross verses the theology of Glory. (I think Martin Luther said that.)

David B. Ellis said...


If you listen to the program, Keller wasn't trying to make this point the be end all argument.


To be clear, I was responding only to the quote. My old clunky computer and slow connection make loading audio and video a painfully slow process.


Who ever argued this in the first place.


No one said you or anyone else argued it. Its a hypothetical situation to which I'm asking you to apply the principle (which you seem to hold) that humans are incapable of legitimately applying moral judgments to a being whose mind is so far in advance of ours.

And, again, I ask: would you judge God, if he made the claim that sadism is good, to be evil?


We are talking about the evil actions of men. Why would God allow or ordain such actions may be above our understanding or knowledge.


No, in this hypothetical I'm NOT talking about the evil actions of men. We're talking about a hypothetical situation in which God makes a moral claim (that sadism is good) which is utterly at odds with everything we judge to be morally right.


In your torture example, you seem to be appealing to a transcendent morality. How would you know that what God did was wrong unless God exists to provide the law within your heart and mind?


In my torture example, I'm am, unlike you, not making the assumption that moral truths have their basis in God.

And you are avoiding the question. Would you or would you not hold that sadism is wrong even if God Himself said otherwise?


In other words, you are borrowing from my worldview to make yours work in order to say my position is wrong. That is irrational.


Its easy to make this standard presuppositionalist claim. More difficult is substantiating it. You have not demonstrated that there must be a God for there to be true moral propositions.

You're welcome to present an argument for that claim if you like.


Again, perhaps we could point to the cross. In one event, we have God ordaining the death of Christ. We have the Son desiring to go to the cross and satisfy the justice of God.


How does it satisfy justice to torture an innocent?

Another divine mystery?

David B. Ellis said...


Perhaps this is more intuitive, but, recently on Christmas Eve, when I had to carry a dying child, doing CPR, suffering with the family as the child died, I learned more about God than being merely an egg-head in the ivory towers of academia.


And I would simply say of this and your other instances of human compassion that they are examples the intrinsic value of love.

That, by the way, far from "borrowing from your worldview", is the foundational idea in my approach to metaethics: that love is an intrinsic good which needs no external sanction, divine or otherwise.

Howard Fisher said...

Mr. Ellis,

I am glad to have you commenting. You are clearly thinking above the average duck, and I very much appreciate that. First, I'll have to come back later today when I get a chance to respond. Second, perhaps you could clarify,

"That, by the way, far from "borrowing from your worldview", is the foundational idea in my approach to metaethics: that love is an intrinsic good which needs no external sanction, divine or otherwise."

I really have no idea what this means or how one even begins to justify such a view or the terms within it like "love" and "good" or laws of logic that are within the sentence, ect.

Is there a place in which you have already written about this or someone else has? I am certain it would take more space than this little Blog would handle.

Also, I apologize for some of my incomplete thoughts in the previous comment. I had edited it, but that edit seems to be lost in cyberspace.

Howard Fisher said...

1) "I'm asking you to apply the principle (which you seem to hold) that humans are incapable of legitimately applying moral judgments to a being whose mind is so far in advance of ours."


OK, I thought I saw that point, and I think the edit that went to cyberspace might have helped, but...

If I made the argument that God's morality is advanced to the point that man is not able to make moral judgments, then I confess I'd be wrong. In fact, I have no idea what "advanced" morality would look like. This seems to be a category misunderstanding between us. I am not arguing that God is a different kind of moral being in the sense He has some other kind of superior morality.

I am arguing that because He is the Creator and therefore is the Artist over the entire creation, He would have a far better understanding of the purpose (since purpose arises from Him) of why events happen. (similar to your own art work)

For instance, in one of your paintings, the astronaut may not understand all of the problem that surround the creation around him. Does that mean he can't understand anything? Of course not. But if the Artist has not revealed why something is the way it is, does that mean there is no purpose as to why something is what it is...good or bad? (I simply refer you to the movie Signs).

2) "And, again, I ask: would you judge God, if he made the claim that sadism is good, to be evil?"

OK, I'll take a stab at it.

First, On the one hand, the Christian evangelist presumes Scripture, ect. But on the other hand, the Christian is to reason with the unbeliever.

Second, the non-Christian ought to be skeptical. But there is a vast difference between being what I would call a healthy skeptic and one who embraces the worldview of skepticism.

We see this when the Apostle Paul went to the Bereans. He considered them wiser since they checked out whether or not what Paul was saying was true.

So if some being came to me and said, "I think torturing babies is fun and can't wait to do it tomorrow.", then I would use the transcendent law that is written within the heart of all men to judge such evil as evil.

Of course this gets down to your comment, "that love is an intrinsic good which needs no external sanction, divine or otherwise."

I have heard this said in a myriad of ways. I am not certain how you approach it though. In the end, it will be another form of "revelation" that comes from yet another human mind in order to get around the truth of the existence of a Creator. In other words, you would just become another competing voice for why we should be good.

Why should I accept your form of revelation as opposed to Moses'? At least God gave huge miraculous signs of the Exodus to demonstrate Moses' authority. God raised Jesus from the dead to demonstrate Jesus' authority.

If religion is only about morality, then much of your objections have some merit. If Jesus has not been raised from the dead, then screw morality. Eat, drink, for tomorrow we die.

I agree with the Apostle Paul, that all religions have morality, but only Christianity has a Gospel. God has done something outside of man to reconcile man to Himself.

3) "Would you or would you not hold that sadism is wrong even if God Himself said otherwise?"

Another problem with this question is that it assumes a logical impossibility could be true. If God could be evil, then He would cease to be God, and I would be appealing to something higher than God to judge God. That is absurd on its face.

We actually see this example in Scripture when God takes an oath but He is not able to swear by any higher Name than His own.

Ultimately, there must be a starting point or ultimate authority that is Self-authenticating. You seem to be making this starting point in yourself.

Howard Fisher said...

4) "More difficult is substantiating it. You have not demonstrated that there must be a God for there to be true moral propositions."

In order for a proposition to exist, God must exist. It is not the created order that explains God. It is God who explains the created order. Think of your own paintings.

In order for the laws of logic to exist, God must exist. In order for words to have meaning, God must exist (I think this explains why words have so little meaning today but I digress).

There is simply no basis for true morality or logic outside of a Creator. Without the Triune God, logic, for instance, becomes merely conventional. Morality becomes merely conventional. Your arguments become merely conventional. They have no true transcendental meaning. You want me to prove an ultimate authority while you get to assume yours. You get to ask the moral questions without any basis for doing so. I reject such a view.

5) "How does it satisfy justice to torture an innocent?

Another divine mystery?"

Now I realize this is a response to much of what I have said about the child torture question. i have answered it already, but it is easily missed in the modern mind that does not understand Biblical teaching.

As Keller noted in the interview, we all know that when an injustice is done, someone must absorb the cost. He uses an example of a lamp being broken. if you came over to my house and accidentally broke my lamp, someone is going to pay for it. The cost just doesn;t go into thin air.

You must understand that in the Christian religion, you have broken the law of a holy Creator. His holiness demands that justice be carried out just as in any normal earthly court room justice must be carried out.

The Gospel is that, while we were yet enemies of a holy God, God sent His Son, the Son desired to come and substitute Himself in behalf of wicked men, in order to reconcile us to God.

To put it another way, the Son absorbs your debt to God, AND gives you His righteous life that you need to stand before God.

Therefore Christianity is not better than other religions because of its moral system, but because it has a Savior for man's true need...sin, guilt and death.

David B. Ellis said...


I really have no idea what this means or how one even begins to justify such a view or the terms within it like "love" and "good" or laws of logic that are within the sentence, etc.


Love. I'm using it in a quite standard sense of a benevolent affection and concern for others.

By a good I mean a thing that is worth valuing. By an intrinsic good I mean a thing that is worth valuing in and of itself.

The laws of logic (logical truths) are propositions which can not, under any circumstance, be false.

If a law of logic would fail to be true if God didn't exist it would NOT be a law of logic.

They are bedrock, foundational, necessary truths and it is simply ridiculous to assert that logical truths must be "accounted for". To demand that others "account for" logical truths is to demonstrate that one has failed to grasp the nature of logical truths.


Is there a place in which you have already written about this or someone else has? I am certain it would take more space than this little Blog would handle.


You sound loath to carry on a debate concerning the validity of presuppositionalism and, to be honest, so am I---I've had this debate several times before and its grown, for me, somewhat tedious.

But I'm willing to go into the topic if you like. Feel free at any point to decide you feel it's not worth your time.


If I made the argument that God's morality is advanced to the point that man is not able to make moral judgments, then I confess I'd be wrong. In fact, I have no idea what "advanced" morality would look like.


You seem to have misinterpreted my statement. I was not referring to "advanced moralities". I was referring to beings with MINDS more advanced than those of humans.


So if some being came to me and said, "I think torturing babies is fun and can't wait to do it tomorrow.", then I would use the transcendent law that is written within the heart of all men to judge such evil as evil.


You think its a transcendent law written in our hearts. I think its simply that someone who has experienced love deeply and isn't either a hopeless fool or utterly emotionally scarred will recognize that fact that love is a thing of priceless value.


I have heard this said in a myriad of ways. I am not certain how you approach it though. In the end, it will be another form of "revelation" that comes from yet another human mind in order to get around the truth of the existence of a Creator.


As I said above, I'm basing my views on the nature of the actual experience of love.

To get more specific regarding my views on moral epistemology, I think some variation of ideal observer theory is the most fruitful approach.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_observer_theory


In other words, you would just become another competing voice for why we should be good.


None of us do more than approximate, imperfectly, an ideal observer. So, inevitably, different people sometimes come to different conclusions.


Why should I accept your form of revelation as opposed to Moses'? At least God gave huge miraculous signs of the Exodus to demonstrate Moses' authority. God raised Jesus from the dead to demonstrate Jesus' authority.


I accept the "authority" of love because I've experienced it and found nothing more relevant to the question "what is right".

If anyone would care to argue that I should listen to something else they're welcome to make their case. Not that I think it likely they will be able to make a good one.

David B. Ellis said...


If religion is only about morality, then much of your objections have some merit. If Jesus has not been raised from the dead, then screw morality. Eat, drink, for tomorrow we die.


What? You only value love because you'll be rewarded in heaven for doing so? I rather doubt that you're quite a depraved as that. I hope not anyway. It would be rather a waste of time discussion ethics with a sociopath.


Another problem with this question is that it assumes a logical impossibility could be true. If God could be evil, then He would cease to be God....


Be careful. One might almost accuse you of slipping the idea of the intrinsic worth of love in through the backdoor---borrowing from my worldview.

What else could it mean to say that if God wasn't loving he wouldn't be God?


...I would be appealing to something higher than God to judge God. That is absurd on its face.


Maybe you'll get my point if I put it this way: suppose you are right that there is an omnipotent, omniscient creator of the universe.

Suppose, however, that you are also incorrect about his nature. He is sadistic and capricious rather than loving and desiring our well-being.

Would he be God?

If not, how is this not a tacit, unacknowledged assumption that I am right about the intrinsic worth of love?

David B. Ellis said...


In order for a proposition to exist, God must exist. It is not the created order that explains God. It is God who explains the created order. Think of your own paintings.


I see no reason to assume that the universe is like a painting (or clock or whatnot): something made by an intelligent being.

You're free to presuppose that. You're free to presuppose that gravity works because of magical microscopic imps inhabiting subatomic particles. However, presupposing, like wishing, doesn't make a belief true.


There is simply no basis for true morality or logic outside of a Creator. Without the Triune God, logic, for instance, becomes merely conventional.


Again, presupposing doesn't make it so.


They have no true transcendental meaning. You want me to prove an ultimate authority while you get to assume yours.


I'm not asking you to prove your moral system. I'm simply pointing out that I have no need to borrow from yours. My concept of intrinsic goods works just fine and doesn't suffer from the difficulties faced by theistic metaethics (that is, that for every theistic metaethics I've encountered there is some version of the Euthyphro dilemma that it cannot overcome).

My responses have been rather long so I'm not going to go into your comments regarding your theory of the atonement. The conversation is quite long enough as it is. Perhaps another time, if you're interested.

Howard Fisher said...

You're right. This is going to get loooong. If you would rather e-mail me that would be fine. That is what I hate about discussions in comments sections. You almost need different threads.

You make one good point that I must comment on. We have talked past each other several times. Again, perhaps e-mailing would be better.

David B. Ellis said...

For me, part of the point of this sort of discussion is that it be public---there for anyone who likes to read, comment on, take their own position on, or simply be inspired to think these sorts of questions over more carefully. Whatever conclusion they may come to; whether it agrees with mine or not.

In short, no, I'm not interested in switching to email.

Howard Fisher said...

"I see no reason to assume that the universe is like a painting (or clock or whatnot): something made by an intelligent being."

I realize that this is the heart of our discussion. I remember being a naturalist, and I used to hate the environmentalists saying that mankind's technology is ruining nature. Because I saw everything as being of nature, including intelligent design. So if man builds a road and kills all of the bears living in an area, so what. That was just as natural as any book I find in a library written by an intelligent author. It was all explained naturally.

Yet we really don't live that way. I know the Blind Watch Maker satisfies many. But I think it is obvious that we see things that are designed. You are not questioning the idea that a man is behind the words showing up on your computer screen. In fact, the thought doesn't even cross your mind. But here is the problem. You do see transcendent purpose.

For instance you state, "Again, presupposing doesn't make it so."

You are in fact, telling me I am wrong. You are not just thinking I am wrong in a purely natural sense. If I walked up and killed your spouse, assuming you have one, you would demand justice that transcend us.

When you make the statement, "By a good I mean a thing that is worth valuing. By an intrinsic good I mean a thing that is worth valuing in and of itself." I see nothing but might makes right. There is no such thing as "intrinsic good". You, from the chemicals in your brain, just made that up.

In other words, value is given by the one desiring the object. I value my wife. She is worth everything to me. Yet if I died, she doesn't cease to be worth something. So in fact she is intrinsically valuable, but why? When she dies, does she cease to be worth something? Without the Creator/creature relationship, there is no value except what we make up in our passing minds.

Howard Fisher said...

"They are bedrock, foundational, necessary truths and it is simply ridiculous to assert that logical truths must be "accounted for". To demand that others "account for" logical truths is to demonstrate that one has failed to grasp the nature of logical truths."

Why is it then other naturalists say they are, in fact, conventional? Why should I believe you? This is just your opinion.

Here is where I think we talk past each other. We need to come up with a term for "good" in a purely naturalistic worldview. It causes confusion to use the term since something that is "intrinsically good" is only justified by God.

We need to say something is okey dokey in the natural world so as not to confuse it with goodness which is often used as a transcendent term.

"Be careful. One might almost accuse you of slipping the idea of the intrinsic worth of love in through the backdoor---borrowing from my worldview."

I thought that was pretty funny. It could only be true if logic transcends us and is not conventional. Two tings. I realize the naturalist says that logic is just a part of nature. Yet you seem to start with their existence as being true. Yet others would dispute with you. You also seem to think that you are just starting with their existence from a morally neutral perspective. I disagree.

This leads to my next point. You are not morally neutral. You said, "None of us do more than approximate, imperfectly, an ideal observer." What would that ideal observer be?

So when you mention "love" as being support for your position, again, this is where we speak past each other. Love by definition is keeping the law unto your neighbor. This is again a transcendent idea. Love is not just "let's be good because it will help us survive or something." Love is demanded of us because of a transcendent law-giver who holds us accountable to His law. Otherwise, I am only "conventionally" accountable and not "intrinsically" accountable.

You believe in love and logic and morality because you are made in the image of God and are therefore intrinsically made accountable to God.


"You think its a transcendent law written in our hearts. I think its simply that someone who has experienced love deeply and isn't either a hopeless fool or utterly emotionally scarred will recognize that fact that love is a thing of priceless value."

Says you. That's quite a transcendent statement if I ever saw one.

"As I said above, I'm basing my views on the nature of the actual experience of love."

The ideal observer is a nice idea, but judging whether love truly exists based upon experience is faulty at best. Who is the ideal observer? This easily leads to the conventional model.

"If a law of logic would fail to be true if God didn't exist it would NOT be a law of logic."

Your response may exist and you may not. No logic violated there either. My point is that you might make the argument that logic exists logically by itself, but then that assumes your position as being consistent as a whole. I don't see that naturalists hold this consistently. So it is an interesting statement, but I don't see how you may justify it. You're just asserting it.

Howard Fisher said...

If anyone would care to argue that I should listen to something else they're welcome to make their case. Not that I think it likely they will be able to make a good one.

This statement is interesting for the presuppositionalist as well. You see yourself as trying to be the ideal observer as if you know what that would be. But you already know what that looks like because you have your starting points, which are by definition opposed to the Creator.

I used to have a friend who would ask me to prove Christianity. I would always respond by asking, "What criteria would I have to overcome to demonstrate Christ's resurrection?"

His response was mostly silent. For if he did establish his criteria, either (a) I would cross the line in the sand, which would only cause him to redraw the line, or (b) his presuppositions would be revealed that basically would say, "You believe guns kill people. Fine. Prove it. BTW, I reject the idea that bullets entering the body kill people. Now prove your case."

The Christian recognizes that in Christ are hidden all the wisdom and knowledge of God. We are made in God's image. Yet man is a sinner and is therefore actively suppressing the truth of God in rebellion. If you are willing to abandon naturalistic materialism, then maybe we would have common ground to even begin such an endeavor.

David B. Ellis said...


So if man builds a road and kills all of the bears living in an area, so what. That was just as natural as any book I find in a library written by an intelligent author. It was all explained naturally.

Yet we really don't live that way.


Of course not. Because the previous paragraph is utterly philosophically naive. The fact that humans putting up a road is as "natural" as the flight of a sparrow has nothing to do with whether it is or isn't a desirable, wise, or sensible thing to do.


You do see transcendent purpose.

For instance you state, "Again, presupposing doesn't make it so."

You are in fact, telling me I am wrong.


What I'm telling you is that you are stating opinions without providing any argument in support of those opinions.


You are not just thinking I am wrong in a purely natural sense. If I walked up and killed your spouse, assuming you have one, you would demand justice that transcend us.


I'd demand justice. I would not demand a justice that transcends nature because I find that a vacuous (and utterly unnecessary) concept.


When you make the statement, "By a good I mean a thing that is worth valuing. By an intrinsic good I mean a thing that is worth valuing in and of itself." I see nothing but might makes right.


I make the statement that "love is an intrinsic good" and you get from this "might makes right"?

How?


There is no such thing as "intrinsic good". You, from the chemicals in your brain, just made that up.


Really? You don't God is an intrinsic good? That a close relationship with God is not something intrinsically worthwhile?


In other words, value is given by the one desiring the object.


Not on the metaethical theory I subscribe to. A man may desire to rape children. This does not make it an intrinsic good. There is more to being an intrinsic good than being desired by someone, somewhere.

An intrinsic good is a good even when someone may be too lacking in insight or understanding to value it. Ideal observer theory. I won't go into the details of my views on it just now. After all, you've not even stated what metaethical theory. When you do then we can compare them. Until then I simply point out you've done nothing to support your presuppositionalist assertions that I'm "borrowing from your worldview" and that God is a necessary precondition for the existence of logic, moral truths, induction, rationality and, apparently, the existence of the kitchen sink.

Howard Fisher said...

Of course not. Because the previous paragraph is utterly philosophically naive. The fact that humans putting up a road is as "natural" as the flight of a sparrow has nothing to do with whether it is or isn't a desirable, wise, or sensible thing to do.?

Right. I agree now. But from my naturalistic assumptions, I would have said, if they go extinct, so what. This whole symbiotic relationship crap is just a religious view of life. If we all went extinct, then that would be just a natural occurrence.

What I'm telling you is that you are stating opinions without providing any argument in support of those opinions.

I make the statement that "love is an intrinsic good" and you get from this "might makes right"?

This is where we collide. You say I have no reason, I am simply starting off with a presupposition to justify my position.

You on the other hand want to tell me what love is. If I disagree, then I am simply wrong because you say so. In the end, if you enforce your views upon me via law, then your only defense is that you win at the voting booth or you have a bigger army or....

Really? You don't God is an intrinsic good? That a close relationship with God is not something intrinsically worthwhile?

Could you clarify. I think you have a good thought here, but I want to be certain I know what you mean.

There is more to being an intrinsic good than being desired by someone, somewhere.

I agree. I was just trying to keep it short/er. You keep mentioning love. I say, so what if I lived in your world. I say your system of morality is just another one. Who really cares? In the end, it is nothing. It amounts to nothing. Your life will mean nothing in 80 years. In a billion years this earth will mean nothing. There is no intrinsic value as you claim.

You are valuable because of the Artist that made you said so. He made you in His image. Without that, you are just plasma oozing through this life. Love is just an illusion.

To put it another way, if the man in the painting rejects you and cuts himself off from you, and you are the source of his existence and knowledge and all other facets of life, then although he may exist without you and live just fine without you and justify his world without you, but he will have to twist his entire world to do so. Eventually the painting will rot. That is the Christian claim against your position.

David B. Ellis said...


Why is it then other naturalists say they are, in fact, conventional? Why should I believe you?


Yes, there are naturalists with whom I have fundamental disagreements. So what? Can you not say the same of other Christians?


Why should I believe you? This is just your opinion.


Yes, I have the staggering audacity to think two plus two can't equal five.


We need to come up with a term for "good" in a purely naturalistic worldview. It causes confusion to use the term since something that is "intrinsically good" is only justified by God.


What is needed is for you to provide an argument in support of the claim made in the last sentence above.


It could only be true if logic transcends us and is not conventional.


It seems rather careless language to me to say "logic transcends us". I'd put it in far more straightforwardly:

Logical truths are propositions that can't be false.

And you've provided, as of yet, no argument to support the assertion that this would be any less so if God didn't exist.

Most theologians, in fact, assert that even God's omnipotence is limited to what is logically possible. That God could no more make 2+2=5 than you or I could.

Do you disagree? If so, thats a miracle I'd like to see. Walking on water and rising from the dead is nothing compared to that.

Howard Fisher said...

What is needed is for you to provide an argument in support of the claim made in the last sentence above.

OK, I'll put it this way. I am presupposing this in order to make sense of the definition. For instance, you assume the laws of logic exist. You believe it is a part of the universe and it would be ridiculous to believe other wise. But that is basic to your definition. You are not proving it. Nor do you need to in your mind. It is just true.

Perhaps it will be clearer to use morality. To say something is intrinsically morally good, by my worldview, definitionally speaking, requires a moral law giver. It isn't that I need a logical proof. It simply makes no sense without a law giver to say there are laws. So I would have the audacity to say that, as you would say 2+2=4 and nothing else.

What I am hearing from you is that if I don't demonstrate with a logical argument that laws have a law giver then I have to believe that laws need no law giver. In the same way, there is no precondition for laws of logic or reason. They just exist in nature and you are just some morally neutral creature that comes along and says they exist in a purely naturalistic world.

To use another example, I would say you are made in the image of God. This explains your great ability to reason and think and use language, draw beautiful art, ect. You want me to prove logically what I am starting with, to explain why you do what you do.

I realize that you have been offering an alternative explanation. I am simply asserting that your view based upon your starting point can't be consistent.

David B. Ellis said...


Two tings. I realize the naturalist says that logic is just a part of nature.


Not this naturalist. That sounds like a way of stating things all too prone to inducing muddled thinking about philosophical questions.

I would say, as I've said it before, that logical truths are propositions that can't be false.

Calling propositions a "part of nature" just sounds rather silly. In a sense its true, of course. Propositions are ideas in people's minds and people are part of nature. But it's an awfully clumsy, roundabout way of saying something that can be stated far more plainly (philosophy is difficult enough without tossing stumbling blocks into our own path as we go).


This leads to my next point. You are not morally neutral.


Of course not. I have opinions, very strong ones, on many moral questions. And on other moral questions I'm far from decided what the right position should be (for example, I'm currently exploring questions regarding the treatment of animals and am a long way from having made up my mind on the issue).


You said, "None of us do more than approximate, imperfectly, an ideal observer." What would that ideal observer be?


Again, I'm not going to go into the details of my metaethical theory when you have yet to even bother stating what metaethical theory you subscribe to.


Love by definition is keeping the law unto your neighbor.


I defined the word as I was using it.


Love is not just "let's be good because it will help us survive or something."


I agree. To be loving is a state of being which is, in and of itself, intrinsically worthwhile.

To be loved is a state which is intrinsically worthwhile. To be part of a community of loving individuals is worthwhile in and of itself and for the sorts of lives it creates for those who are a part of it.

Love, in fact, is so intrinsically to be valued that if there were an omnipotent, omniscient creator of the universe and he lacked a loving nature he would be unworthy of our worship.

To use your own words, he would not be God.


You believe in love and logic and morality because you are made in the image of God and are therefore intrinsically made accountable to God.


Again, you assert that God is required for these things without a trace of an argument in support of this claim.


This statement is interesting for the presuppositionalist as well. You see yourself as trying to be the ideal observer as if you know what that would be.


The ideal observer is a person who has the requisite characteristics to make sound, correct evaluations about what is and isn't intrinsically good, right, etc.

So far as I and most other ideal observer theorists can tell these characteristics would include objectivity, a broad knowledge of the relevant facts, and the imagination to understand a wide variety of possible value systems and their living consequences from the inside.

Indeed, a tall order. But, as I've already said, if we're going to fruitfully compare our respective metaethical theories you need to at least state what metaethical theory it is you subscribe to. Divine command theory, perhaps? If not, then what other variant of a metaethical theory that requires God's existence do you subscribe to? You haven't even so much as named it as of yet.

David B. Ellis said...


For instance, you assume the laws of logic exist.


Again, I find this a sloppy way of stating things that is all to prone to muddled thinking. What I say is that there are certain propositions that people can make which cannot be false. These propositions we name "logical truths".


You believe it is a part of the universe and it would be ridiculous to believe other wise.


I don't think you've yet read the comment I just made where I've already responded to basically the same thing you're saying here. I'll just leave what I've already said on the topic to speak for itself and you can respond to it if you like when you read it.


Perhaps it will be clearer to use morality. To say something is intrinsically morally good, by my worldview, definitionally speaking, requires a moral law giver.


Then you're defining "intrinsically good" in a way very near the opposite of the sense in which I'm using the word. When I say something is an intrinsic good I mean it's worth valuing in and of itself. Pretty much the opposite of saying its worth valuing because a moral lawgiver says to value it.


What I am hearing from you is that if I don't demonstrate with a logical argument that laws have a law giver then I have to believe that laws need no law giver.


Please note that it is you and not I that refers to them as "laws of logic". I have consistently called them "logical truths" and "propositions that cannot be false". And I have done so for precisely the reason that I DON'T share your views about their nature.


To use another example, I would say you are made in the image of God.


Suppose there is an omnipotent, omniscient creator of the universe in whose image we are created. Suppose, as I mentioned before, that you are mistaken about his nature. He is a sadist rather than being benevolent.

Would sadism then be right?


I realize that you have been offering an alternative explanation. I am simply asserting that your view based upon your starting point can't be consistent.


However, nothing you've said indicates anything other than that my view can't be consistent with the view you endorse. Which is of course true. But its a far cry from showing that my view is internally inconsistent---something you've yet to even approach a credible argument for.


You on the other hand want to tell me what love is. If I disagree, then I am simply wrong because you say so.


What I've done is tell you in what sense I'm using the word---as is necessary for clear communication.


In the end, if you enforce your views upon me via law, then your only defense is that you win at the voting booth or you have a bigger army or....


The question at hand is the nature of moral truths. Whether and under what circumstance I should or shouldn't enforce my views about what is right is an enormous question in its own right. And one I have yet to take a position on in this discussion. They could be the extreme of pacifistic effort as persuasion for all you yet know.

Regardless, its a question that both of us would have to deal with. Your theistic morality as much as my naturalistic moral system.


Could you clarify. I think you have a good thought here, but I want to be certain I know what you mean.


It seems a pretty clear question to me: is a relationship with God worth valuing in and of itself?

I don't know have to put it any more plainly.

If so, of course, then there ARE intrinsic goods (one, at the very least).


In the end, it is nothing. It amounts to nothing. Your life will mean nothing in 80 years. In a billion years this earth will mean nothing. There is no intrinsic value as you claim.


Life ends. And in the meantime our lives are best lived loving others. If you are unable to see that then, in all honesty, I'm deeply sorry for you.

Howard Fisher said...

Thanks David,

You have definitely challenged me to be clearer about this subject.

I defined the word as I was using it.

I think this is our main problem. I am defining this far differently. You ask me what form of metaethics i ascribe to. I don't sit around reading the myriads of man made systems. I would never get through them all. I am trying to learn more about how to discuss natural law so that I can stand with the non-Christian against certain evils, but...

I am also a Reformed Baptist. So I derive my understanding of the law of God from the Scriptures from that perspective.

In response to my claim about the image of God within you,

you assert that God is required for these things without a trace of an argument in support of this claim.

You keep stating this. But I am not accepting your presuppositions and definitions. The definition of what I am referring to is built in. But since I am obviously not clear about what I am saying I will try to come back later today with a response that might help.

For instance, you said, "When I say something is an intrinsic good I mean it's worth valuing in and of itself."

Yet when I say that when we are gone, where is this intrinsic value? I don't believe this statement makes any sense in a purely naturalistic world. Therefore, when I say intrinsic value, I obviously mean something far different.

Perhaps later today I will get to post. For now I must go back to work.

David B. Ellis said...


You keep stating this. But I am not accepting your presuppositions and definitions.


I'm not asking you to. I'm simply pointing out that you have failed, so far, to point out any internal inconsistency in my position.

The presuppositionalist position, in every form I've encountered it, is that Christianity is the only worldview capable of consistency and that all others contradict themselves.

But you've so far been able to point out no inconsistency in my position. You've done nothing but point out ways that my position contradicts your presuppositions.

Which is no more relevant than it is when a Muslim says your presuppositions contradict his beliefs. So what? That doesn't make you an iota more likely to be wrong. Nor does it make me an iota more likely to be wrong when you do the same.


Yet when I say that when we are gone, where is this intrinsic value? I don't believe this statement makes any sense in a purely naturalistic world. Therefore, when I say intrinsic value, I obviously mean something far different.


Which is the wiser perspective?

To accept the brevity of life, if it must be inevitably so, and to find in life a joy tempered with poignancy or to allow the brevity of life to sour one's ability to experience happiness?

Howard Fisher said...

"To accept the brevity of life, if it must be inevitably so, and to find in life a joy tempered with poignancy or to allow the brevity of life to sour one's ability to experience happiness?"

This is what I am talking about when you say I have not responded. You are appealing to something outside of us to ask the question "which is wiser?" If I say something that disagrees, you'll just say you're sorry I didn't see it your way. So on the one hand, you seem to appeal to something higher than both of us, and then admit there really is no reason to be moral.

You simply do not have the "preconditions" to make that claim work. Of course I know you have responded to my counter argument, but that is only by defining morality in such a way as to be radically different from a morality that actually binds one's conscience and rightly so.

Right now I have to play Jedi Knight with my kid, so I'll try to write that response I mentioned later this evening if I get a chance.

David B. Ellis said...


You are appealing to something outside of us to ask the question "which is wiser?"


Appealing to something outside of us? I'm doing nothing of the sort. I was simply asking a question. A rhetorical question, in fact, since the answer to it is pretty obvious.


Of course I know you have responded to my counter argument, but that is only by defining morality in such a way as to be radically different from a morality that actually binds one's conscience and rightly so.


A deep experience of love is more than sufficient to bind one's conscience. There can be no better foundation for morality.

And, on that note, I think I'll conclude my comments---I think we've both more than adequately explained our positions and have reached the point where we're just going to be repeating ourselves. Thanks for allowing me to take up so much of your time with this discussion.