Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: July 24, 2025, 2:40 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Evolutionary explanation of morality self-refuting?
#36
RE: Evolutionary explanation of morality self-refuting?
(April 18, 2012 at 2:22 pm)NoMoreFaith Wrote: I don't think you've added anything to the original statement to be honest, other than clarification that skepticism about all things is indeed self-refuting.

This is precisely my point, the refutation to the argument lies not solely in showing Morality is proven through evolution, although that's more than feasible, but the assumption that we should be skeptical about all things.

I use the word faith very loosely certainly, as an indication that the only things we can believe without evidence (i.e. have faith in) are those that WOULD be self-refuting to deny, although we cannot prove them. Axiomatic principles as you put it.

What the argument in the OP states is that we should be skeptical about the evolutionary account itself, which I attempt to show is an asinine argument as there is a basis for that "belief" based upon the axiomatic principles we MUST adher to in order to infer knowledge of anything.

Skepticism does therefore not infer that we should be skeptical about all things, merely that we should reasonably expect to be able to make a predictive statement about its effects, and if we cannot, we should not assign it with a label of "true".

What Platinga and Lane seem to want to do, is insert God as a base assumption because the God principle offers us no predictive abilities about reality.
The God hypothesis can predict nothing, and therefore fails to adher to the basic principles of knowledge, and the only way to crowbar him into the world, is to set him up as a base assumption, which doesn't work, because the hypothesis is not inescapable in the way that the first assumptions are made.

I think that the identification of those assumptions as axiomatic and the explanation of why these should be considered axiomatic was called for in order to preemptively exclude inclusion of any arbitrary statements (such as god) as axiomatic concepts as well. I didn't think I was adding anything new here, only explicitly identifying certain statements that were implicit in your argument - primarily, the identification of those assumptions as axiomatic.

Reply



Messages In This Thread
RE: Evolutionary explanation of morality self-refuting? - by genkaus - April 18, 2012 at 3:23 pm

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Morality Kingpin 101 11908 May 31, 2023 at 6:48 am
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life, Purpose of Human Life, lunwarris 49 7342 January 7, 2023 at 11:42 am
Last Post: arewethereyet
  A Case for Inherent Morality JohnJubinsky 66 10749 June 22, 2021 at 10:35 am
Last Post: John 6IX Breezy
  Morality without God Superjock 102 14465 June 17, 2021 at 6:10 pm
Last Post: Ranjr
Exclamation Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life, Purpose of Human Life, barji 9 2134 July 10, 2020 at 10:42 pm
Last Post: Peebothuhlu
Wink Refuting Theistic Argument Ricardo 40 5916 October 7, 2019 at 3:11 pm
Last Post: BrianSoddingBoru4
  self illusion joe90 18 4235 April 8, 2019 at 2:34 pm
Last Post: no one
Exclamation Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life, Purpose of Human Life, asthev 14 3234 March 17, 2019 at 3:40 pm
Last Post: chimp3
  Morality Agnostico 337 56769 January 30, 2019 at 6:00 pm
Last Post: vulcanlogician
Exclamation Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life, Purpose of Human Life, auuka 21 4281 October 7, 2018 at 2:12 pm
Last Post: Reltzik



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)