Letter 7 to Thinking Christian

meTom,

Let’s consider your suggested points of agreement. I’d like to rephrase them so that I can confidently affirm some of them. Can you affirm 1-7 below?

  1. Moral values exist, and they are objectively true in that their truth value does not depend on human beliefs about them. [In particular, I defend desirism as a successful theory of moral realism.]
  2. Most humans have an inner sensation that objective moral values exist.
  3. Humans are aware of their own thoughts and subjective experiences. [Human consciousness is "real."]
  4. Most humans believe they have some powers of contra-causal free will.1
  5. Most humans believe there is some sense in which they are the same “person” from day to day, even as their thoughts and memories and the atoms that make up their body change.2
  6. Most humans believe that their life has some kind of meaning and purpose that transcends the purposes they invent for themselves.
  7. Most humans believer there is something “wrong” with the world. They think it could be “better.”
  8. [I wouldn't commit to #8 at all. See Wild Justice and other works on animal moral cognition and beliefs.]
  9. [The only part of #9 I can commit to is a repeat of #7.]
  10. [I definitely can't commit to a lack of moral progress in the past several millennia. I think there has been tremendous moral progress.]

And, just as a reminder, we already agreed on the following:

  • Truth is not relative.
  • Science is our most reliable and successful means for gaining knowledge about the natural world.
  • We humans are plagued by many cognitive biases, which corrupt our pursuit of the truth.
  • The laws of logic are true.
  • Some propositions are more probably true than others.
  • You and I and the external world exist.
  • The supernatural may exist, but it cannot be known to exist prior to experience.
  • The ontological argument does not prove the existence of God.
  • Science has a lot to say about the reality of God and Christianity.

Tom, you did not answer my questions about your probability calculations. But perhaps we can skip it – and also skip proper basicality – if we can just focus our discussion on the following question: Is Christianity or atheism better supported by argument and evidence? A simpler way of phrasing roughly the same question would be: Which worldview offers the better explanation of our world: Christianity or atheism? Is that the focus of our debate?

Cheers,

Luke

  1. This belief is certainly not incorrigible as you seem to think. Also, you may be surprised at how many people do not believe in contra-causal free will, including millions and millions of religious believers, as well as most philosophers of mind and neuroscientists. [↩]
  2. Again, their may be more exceptions to this than you think. Buddhism, for example, rejects personal identity. [↩]
This entry was posted on Wednesday, November 4th, 2009 at 9:49 pm, and is filed under Luke and Tom.