Discussion Grounds

Tom,

Sure, we can discuss moral progress later.¹

To recap, then, here’s what we agree on so far:

• 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.
• Moral values exist, and they are objectively true in that their truth value does not depend on human beliefs about them.
• Most humans have an inner sensation that objective moral values exist, and many believe they are responsible to those values.
• Most humans accept metaphysical libertarianism.
• Most humans believe there is something ‘wrong’ with the world. They think it could be ‘better.’
• Humans are aware of their own thoughts and subjective experiences.
• 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.
• Most humans believe that their life has some kind of meaning and purpose that transcends the purposes they invent for themselves.

Sure, Tom, let’s start with your existential argument in favor of Christianity. If possible, please give it in clear, logical form so that I know for sure what I’m responding to. And of course, please give it in the context of our question:

Which worldview offers the best explanation of our world: Christianity or naturalism?

I look forward to the start of our debate!

Luke

1. For now, let me note that you did not respond to the historical argument for decreased violence. Also, you made a methodological complaint about a single study out of dozens that I cited in support of the view that Scandinavian countries are among the healthiest in the world. Even if that study is flawed, it affects my argument very little. I am going to remove that study from my list of sources; thanks for pointing me to the critiques! [↩]