Accounting for universal, absolute, standards

[Puritan Sailor]

When we say unbelievers can't account for universal absolute standards, what exactly are we saying? Some of them do try to account for them. And we know that they certainly do use them contrary to their predominate unbelief. But when we say they can't account for universals, what are we really accusing them of? What's the missing link for them to connect universal absolutes to their unbelieving worldview? Is it just a logical or rational connection?

[Edited on 12-11-2004 by puritansailor]

 

[SmokingFlax]

"...what are we really accusing them of?"

It seems to me that the heart of the accusation is that they are obstinately refusing to acknowledge the obvious bankruptcy of their position in the face of overwhelming evidence (at least in terms of ethics). Or, as Van Til said, they are sitting in their Father's lap in order to slap him in the face. They have no answer to (your) accusation but would rather hold tenaciously to their illogical view than accept the theistic alternative -always proclaiming how "rational" they are of course.

I don't believe that there is a "missing link for them to connect universal absolutes to their unbelieving worldview" without resorting to rank paganism as indeed I've seen evidence of (like Hillman's Soul's Code where Hillman actually endorses a pagan metaphysic [borrowed from the Greek's Daemon system] for explaining the diversity in human personality, etc.). I wouldn't be surprised to see more of this neo-paganism in the intellectual class as time moves on and the realization that their basis of thought somehow doesn't satisfy the deepest needs of the human condition.

Both Van Til and Schaeffer felt firmly that the intellectual class has reached the end of their rope in terms of their atheistic enlightenment ideals.

I would say that the broad acceptance of post-modern philosophy (across the intellectual world) pretty much confirms Schaeffer and Van Til.

I also agree with Rushdoony where he concludes that such a class of people who hold to (that) worldview cannot truly construct any kind of meaningful culture(s) or institutions and can ONLY destroy what already exists -which is where they get the bulk of their identity and energy from...i.e. destruction.

I don't know if this necessarily answers your questions (???) but this is how I think about them.

[Edited on 12-11-2004 by SmokingFlax]

 

[luvroftheWord]

And why, oh why, would you want to do apologetics any other way than this?

[Edited on 14-11-2004 by luvroftheWord]

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by Paul manata
So, for an easy example: All that exists is matter in motion. Now, matter is defined by having these characteristics: location, mass, energy. So, taking X (their materialism) you would show that *IF* we followed their view out consistantly then the concept of some universal (not having location) immaterial (not having mass) entity would be a contradiction since, remember, *ALL* that exists is matter.

Ok, with this example, why couldn't there be a universal property of matter from which logic is based upon? If it's all matter, then there is a universal quality to it, that is material instead of immaterial, yet still universal. Are you really trying to say there's no grounds for conscious thought if the materialistic world view were correct?

 

[Puritan Sailor]

OK. I think I got it. Just hard to wrap my brain around some of these concepts sometimes.

 

[luvroftheWord]

Paul,

How do you deal with people who try to argue that things like the laws of logic and the law of induction aren't really "things"? I almost don't know how to phrase the question. But people will question me saying things like, "How do you know that logic is an entity?" or something. I understand what they're asking, I just don't know how to say it.