>>ALL morals that we have, regardless of the source, regardless of whether they are objective or subjective, are filtered through humans. As such, we can never be absolutely sure that they are free from error. All of your “moral governance”, “reasoning and responsibility“, “self referential”, “IS-OUGHT” talking points are just that. Talking points. They are not arguments against what I have said about the fact that ALL purported moral actions are open to be questioned. Unless, of course, you suggest that we shouldn’t use the reasoning capabilities that we were given. >>
This is of course reflective of common views and agendas in our civilisation and so it is appropriate to reply, taking time to address key issues at worldviews level:
KF, 32: >>Pardon, but it is now further evident that you have not seen the significance of self-evident truth in general.
Could you be in error that you are conscious?
If so, what is there that is aware to regard the possibility of error? (And this is about the bare fact of consciousness, you could be a brain in a vat manipulated by electrified probes to imagine yourself a man in the world and you would still be undeniably certain of the bare fact of your own consciousness.)
Speaking of, that error exists is also undeniably true. Let E be that claim, then put up the attempted denial ~E. In other words ~E means it is an error to say that error exists. So, E is undeniable.
2 + 3 = 5 is also self-evident and undeniable:
|| + ||| –> |||||
In general, SET’s are truths that — once we are able to understand i/l/o our experience of the world — are seen to be so, and to be necessarily so on pain of patent absurdity on the attempted denial.
Such lie at the heart of rationality, through the manifest fact of distinct identity. Take some distinct A like a bright red ball on a table, so the world W is:
W = {A|~A}
From this world partition, we instantly see that A is itself, and no x can be (A AND ~A), also that any x is (A X-OR ~A). That is, from distinct identity, the three first principles of right reason are immediately present: Laws of Identity, Non-Contradiction and Excluded Middle.
Likewise from distinct identity two-ness is a direct corollary and from that the natural counting numbers and much of the logic of structure and quantity follows — i.e. Mathematics (which is NOT primarily an empirical discipline). As a start, I use the von Neumann construction:
Much more can be said, but the above is sufficient to show that there are literally infinitely many things that we may know with utter certainty, starting from a few that are self-evident. But also, such SET’s are insufficient to construct a worldview; they serve as plumbline tests for worldviews.
In particular, that something like E is knowable to utter certainty on pain of patent absurdity on attempted denial means, truth exists as what says of what is that it is and of what is not that it is not. Similarly, this is warranted to utter certainty and so some things can be known to utterly, absolutely cretain degree. Therefore any worldview that imagines that such knowledge is impossible collapses in fatal, central error. Subjectivism, relativism and post modernism, I am looking straight at you.
Going further, following the Kantians, many have been induced to imagine that there is an ugly gulch blocking us from knowledge on the external world of things in themselves. Ever since F H Bradley over 100 years ago, this is known to be false. For, the claim to know of such an ignorance gap is to claim to know something of the outside world, i.e. the claim is self referential and incoherent.
A plumbline
We may then infer freely, that we may and do know things about reality external to our interior lives. Though, as error exists is equally certain, we must be careful in warrant. As a first test, plumbline truths will help us. And for many things a lesser degree of warrant is more than good enough. For example on serious matters, we may have moral certainty, that it would be irresponsible to act as though some A were false, on the evidence to hand or reasonably accessible. For yet other things — including science by and large — plausibly or possibly so and reliable i/l/o the balance of evidence is good enough. And so forth.
I am taking a little time to show you that I am not just talking from empty talking points, there are grounds of warrant for what I have to say. And, speaking for this blog, on worldview matters we have spent years thinking through such core matters. As, they lie at the heart of how our civilisation is in the state it is.
Now, too, you will notice that in speaking of moral certainty, I highlighted responsibility, moral government. We intuitively know that we have duties to truth, care in reasoning, fairness, justice, neighbour who is as we are, and more.
All of this reflects how our life of reason is inextricably entangled with responsibility, duty, moral government. And, dismissive hyperskepticism seeking to sweep that away is manifestly a failure of such duties.
Were our rational faculty utterly unrestrained by responsibility, duty, moral government, it would fall into the cynical nihilism of utter manipulativeness and imposition by force: might and/or manipulation make ‘right,’ ‘truth,’ ‘knowledge,’ ‘justice’ and more. That is suicidally absurd. And you know better, as you know that the very force that energises dispute such as in this thread is duty to truth, sound reason and more.
Yes, the mere fact that we inescapably find ourselves trying to justify ourselves and show others in the wrong immediately reveals the massive fact of moral government, and that this is critical to governing ourselves in community. On pain of mutual ruin.
But then, that surfaces another point you wished to brush off with dismissive talking points: the IS-OUGHT gap. That IS and OUGHT are categorically distinct and hard to resolve and unify. That has been known since Plato and beyond. Since Hume, we have known it can only be resolved at world-root level, or else we fall under the guillotine of ungrounded ought. Reasoning IS-IS, then suddenly from nowhere OUGHT-OUGHT. Where, if OUGH-ness is delusion, it instantly entails grand delusion, including of the life of responsible reason itself.
Your root challenge is, there is only one serious candidate that can soundly bridge the gap: the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being; worthy of loyalty and the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature.
This is not an arbitrary imposition, we are dealing with worldviews analysis on comparative difficulties across factual adequacy, coherence and balanced explanatory adequacy (neither simplistic nor an ad hoc patchwork). If you doubt what I just said, simply put up a successful atlernative: ________ . (Prediction: v. hard to do.)
So, we are at world-root level, looking at generic ethical theism and the central importance of moral government in our life of reason.
The easy hyperskepticism that sweeps all before it on sheer rhetorical audacity is not good enough.
And, it is interesting that so far you have not readily found significant fault with the central Christian ethical teaching (which is of course profoundly Hebraic in its roots). It is there above, laid out in full. Kindly, tell us why those who acknowledge themselves to be under its government and will readily acknowledge that it is a stiff life-challenge are to be instantly, deeply suspect with but few exceptions.
And, tell us why a civilisation deeply influenced by such a teaching is to be branded with a scarlet letter instead of found to be in the sort of struggle to rise to excellence in the face of our finitude, prone-ness to error, moral struggle and too often our ill-will that are the anchor-points of genuine progress for our world.>>
I should add an earlier remark on two example of self-evident moral truth:
KF, 15: >>[I]mplicit in any contested argument is the premise that we have duties to truth, right and soundness in reasoning. On pain of twisting our intellectual powers into nihilistic weapons of cynical deception. In short X objects to Y, on the confident knowledge of in-common duties of intellectual, rational and epistemic virtue. The attempt to challenge ALL moral obligation would be self-referential and incoherent, undermining good faith reasoning itself.
I would go so far as to say this duty of care to truth, right and sound reasoning is self-evident and is typically implicitly accepted.
So, no, we cannot challenge ALL moral claims without undermining even the process of argument itself. No, we cannot dismiss general moral reasoning as suspect of being a blind appeal to authorities. No, mere consequences we happen to imagine (ever heard of the doctrine of unintended consequences?) or motives we think we read in the hearts of others (you are the same who seemingly views Christianity in general as though we are automatically suspect . . .) cannot ground such a broad-brush skepticism about moral reasoning.
We are already at self-referential incoherence.
Infinite regress comes out of the insisted on ALL and the inextricable entanglement of reasoning and moral duties as were outlined. Claim A is suspect so B must be advanced but implies another ought, so B requires C, and oops, we are on to infinity and absurdity.
General hyperskepticism about the moral brings down the proud edifice of reason too by fatally undermining its own self.
Selective hyperskepticism ends in inconsistency, exerting a double standard: stiff rules for thee, but not for me when such are not convenient to where I want to go . . . .
we need plumbline, naturally straight test cases.
One of these, as I outlined, is the inextricable entanglement of reason and duty to truth, right and soundness of logic.
In that light, we can then look at sound yardstick cases and clear the rubble of the modernist collapse of rationality and responsibility away.
For example,it is self-evidently wrong, wicked, evil to kidnap, bind, torture, sexually violate and murder a young child for one’s sick pleasure. (And, sadly, this is NOT a hypothetical case.)
Probe this case and you will see that such a child hath neither strength nor eloquence to fight or plead for himself or herself. And yet, were we to chance on such a demonic act in progress we are duty bound to try to rescue or at least bawl for help.
We are inescapably under moral government.
Which implies that IS and OUGHT must be bridged in the root of reality, on pain of reducing moral government to grand delusion that takes down rationality itself in its collapse.>>
Food for thought. END
Comments
O, well said, I don't have time to do a point by point on everything. JS needs to know that many people find themselves trapped in wrongdoing, consenting to right principle but unable to escape. Famously, including Paul of Tarsus as he describes himself in that book he patently despises, in Rom 7. Second, others take positive delight in wrongdoing, including some truly horrific cases. That includes the one I have listed. The whole project of moral transformation and overcoming the mystery of dominating evil within goes beyond UD's remit, but I can safely say that for 2,000 years the Christian answer has been spiritual rebirth and transformation from within by the indwelling, welling up Holy Spirit. KFkairosfocus
December 28, 2017
December
12
Dec
28
28
2017
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT
JS, you have tried to divert the issue. As noted in the OP your actual argument has been: "ALL morals that we have, regardless of the source, regardless of whether they are objective or subjective, are filtered through humans. As such, we can never be absolutely sure that they are free from error." accordingly I pointed out that knowledge in general has cases of utter certainty that we can attain to, key self evident truths. So the filtered through humans therefore inevitably uncertain case collapses at the outset. Obviously, one of the SET's is, error exists, so not all claimed truths can meet this standard, actually they are relatively few and will never be enough to compose a complete worldview. Next, I point out that moral consideration and duty are inextricably entangled in reasoning so that one cannot effectively sever and wall off moral reasoning into a lower, suspect category without undermining all reasoning -- the "infection" would instantly spread into all reasoning through undermining duties of care to truth, sound reasoning, fairness, justice, etc. As has been indicated above or pretty directly implied. Third, I took up a very specific real world case -- one you have by and large dodged -- and pointed out that it is a case of self-evident moral knowledge, i.e. certain on pain of patent absurdity on attempted denial. Your core case collapses. You have yet to face that. Of course, trivially one may question cases of knowledge, that has nothing to do with whether knowledge can in some cases be warranted to utter certainty by even finite, fallible, morally struggling and too often ill willed human beings. The real issue is quality of warrant, which you have not been so far able to seriously address. Nor is it the case that if I can question or doubt, I can safely dismiss, that sort of hyperskepticism is blatant error. And, cases of warrant to self-evident certainty include some moral cases. In short, your substantial case fails. And, hyperskepticism also fails. KFkairosfocus
December 28, 2017
December
12
Dec
28
28
2017
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT
Q, no, the OP shows that the category moral knowledge is non-empty. It does not attempt to impose rationalism as a criterion of morality. KFkairosfocus
December 28, 2017
December
12
Dec
28
28
2017
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT
JSmith @
JS: Of course. We all think that our moral beliefs are correct.
If so, no one would have any moral doubt, which is contradicted by countless testimonies.
JS: In fact, this may be the only self evident truth in this entire discussion.
Not so, but otherwise the mere possibility of rational debate rests on self-evident truths.
JS: And it is this feeling of absolute certainty about our moral actions that is probably responsible for much of human suffering.
Again, I do not agree. And BTW you are aware that people can do things they know are wrong, don’t you?
JS: An intelligent person will question why they act (or think) in certain ways, and change their behaviour based on their rational questioning about what they had always thought to be true.
Why would that change anything? If there is no basis for ethical thoughts what is there to rationally question? Perhaps you can give an example of such a rational intervention.
Let’s start with this:
Rational Question: Why do I not physically harm my two year old child?
Rational Answer: ………
JS: That is why it is critical to continually question what we consider to be morally based actions.
How does that look like when there are no ethical values that are beyond debate? How do you build a house on quicksand?
JS: The actions that continue to survive rational examination will survive. Those that don’t, like slavery and jailing homosexuals, won’t.
According to the NCA, there is modern slavery and trafficking 'in every UK town and city'.
Anyway, you seem to be very optimistic about a radical “rational examination” of morality. I do not understand what you mean by that. I am saying that you cannot think without axioms. You can address that argument or not. Your choice.Origenes
December 28, 2017
December
12
Dec
28
28
2017
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT
O
So, tell me, why is it wrong to take away a person’s freedom? Why do you say that slavery is “thankfully” abolished? You obviously assume the truth of things, which, according to your dictum, should be open to debate.
Of course. We all think that our moral beliefs are correct. You only have to read KF’s comments to know that this is true. In fact, this may be the only self evident truth in this entire discussion. And it is this feeling of absolute certainty about our moral actions that is probably responsible for much of human suffering. An intelligent person will question why they act (or think) in certain ways, and change their behaviour based on their rational questioning about what they had always thought to be true.
That is why it is critical to continually question what we consider to be morally based actions. The actions that continue to survive rational examination will survive. Those that don’t, like slavery and jailing homosexuals, won’t. The only people that oppose the questioning of their moral actions are those who fear being able to defend them.JSmith
December 28, 2017
December
12
Dec
28
28
2017
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT
JSmith @49
O: Suppose that 2 + 2 = 4 is open to questioning. Would there be a basis for mathematics?
JSmith: Is 2+2=4 a moral action? Because my claim is only about moral actions.
My broader point is that one always needs a basis for one’s reasoning — in mathematics and ethics alike. There is no rationality possible when everything is open to debate.
JSmith: Just because something is open for debate doesn’t mean that the conclusion of the debate will ever change.
How do you debate ethics while anything is open to debate? How do you do mathematics while you do not know if 2 + 2 = 4 or 5 or 32?
JSmith: But, thankfully, the conclusion did change with respect to the morality of slavery, the physical disciplining of a wife, the jailing of homosexuals and the denying of marriage to same sex couples did change.
So, tell me, why is it wrong to take away a person’s freedom? Why do you say that slavery is “thankfully” abolished? You obviously assume the truth of things, which, according to your dictum, should be open to debate.Origenes
December 28, 2017
December
12
Dec
28
28
2017
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT
O
My apologies for falsely assuming you are a materialist.
Don’t worry about it. I share many opinions with materialists, so I can see the confusion.
Suppose that 2 + 2 = 4 is open to questioning. Would there be a basis for mathematics?
Is 2+2=4 a moral action? Because my claim is only about moral actions.
If it is possible that e.g. killing a toddler for personal pleasure is a good thing, then can we discuss ethics? Where do we base our reasoning on?
Put another way, if anything is debatable, what do we debate with?
Just because something is open for debate doesn’t mean that the conclusion of the debate will ever change. But, thankfully, the conclusion did change with respect to the morality of slavery, the physical disciplining of a wife, the jailing of homosexuals and the denying of marriage to same sex couples did change.
If we are to say that some moral actions can’t be questioned, ever, who makes this decision? The Pope? The Radical Imam? The KKK? The Dalai Lamma? Dawkins? Trump? I think that you can see where the danger lies in this view.JSmith
December 28, 2017
December
12
Dec
28
28
2017
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT
JSmith,
My apologies for falsely assuming you are a materialist.
JSmith: I see a lot of words here but you continue to avoid addressing my claim that all moral actions are open to questioning.
Suppose that 2 + 2 = 4 is open to questioning. Would there be a basis for mathematics?
If it is possible that e.g. killing a toddler for personal pleasure is a good thing, then can we discuss ethics? Where do we base our reasoning on?
Put another way, if anything is debatable, what do we debate with?Origenes
December 28, 2017
December
12
Dec
28
28
2017
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT
KF at 43. I see a lot of words here but you continue to avoid addressing my claim that all moral actions are open to questioning. Since this OP was created to address my statement, it would be nice to actually see you do this.JSmith
December 28, 2017
December
12
Dec
28
28
2017
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT
JSmith @ 42: Is the moral condemnation of rape really open to question? Is that not an unquestionable prohibition?Truth Will Set You Free
December 28, 2017
December
12
Dec
28
28
2017
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT
The OP seems to be an argument for Moral Rationalism, and some of the objections that followed centered on attempts to find contradictions between revelatory religions, which of course is an obvious non sequitur to all but those who are blinded by their ideology.
That there are positive and negative consequences to one’s actions is simply pragmatic, which is why elements in our society are fighting so fiercely to protect immoral people from all consequences.
I’m not a philosopher, but I’d suggest that we’re way out of our league in such arguments. For example, consider the following:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2653425?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
With all due respect, what we seem to be doing is trying to follow the faltering steps of Benedict de Spinoza . . .
http://www.iep.utm.edu/spinoza/
As someone who is enraptured by the person and teachings of Jesus, and the testimonies of his apostles, I follow the simple ideal presented by the prophet in Micah 6:8 (NASB)
He has told you, O man, what is good;
And what does the Lord require of you
But to do justice, to love kindness,
And to walk humbly with your God.
And for my frequent failures, I trust in the atonement and forgiveness offered by God through his Son.
Thus, I’m set free to delight in discovering God’s creation, to expend my labor in making life better for others through technology, and to contribute my testimony about the joy that fills my life to those who want a change in their lives.
-Q
P.S. Reflecting on the discussion, I'd anticipate that some will ask how to define justice, kindness, and humility. But I'd contend that to do so is simply redirecting the argument against the foundation of language. In other words, these terms must be self-evident for us to communicate at all.Querius
December 28, 2017
December
12
Dec
28
28
2017
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT
Truth, thanks. KFkairosfocus
December 28, 2017
December
12
Dec
28
28
2017
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT
JS,
[KF:] Sorry, but it has been shown that all statements in an argument context are pervaded by moral considerations such as duties of care to truth, fairness, justice, soundness of logic, etc.
[JS:] If you want to use rediculous arguments, that is your choice. According to your logic, “the sky is blue” and “water is wet” are moral statement. We all know that these are statements of fact (or not) with no moral value one way or the other.
And the underlying failure to see the obvious on your part comes bubbling up to the surface.
Why, dear sir, is it significant that certain things are recognised as facts? Because they are warranted true to moral certainty. The duty of care to ascertain and respect things properly warranted as true emerges yet again.
If you will glance back at what I actually said, you will see that I have pointed to how our life of the mind, especially as regards argument, is inextricably entangled with duties of care to truth, sound logic, fairness, justice, prudence and more. As a direct consequence, all our inner life of the mind is pervaded with a moral dimension.
In short, we are morally governed, rationally and responsibly significantly free creatures.
Therefore, to point out this too often neglected fact in a context where it is highly germane, is not ridiculous.
That you do perceive such a fact as ridiculous, speaks to an underlying problem. You have clearly made a crooked yardstick into a standard of straightness and uprightness and accuracy. The result is predictable: what is genuinely straight (a root meaning of "true" BTW), accurate and upright cannot meet the crooked yardstick test. So, if you cling to a crooked standard, you will have to dismiss what is sound.
And that is one reason why plumbline test cases are so important.
Cases that this thread and the previous will show, you keep on disregarding.
In this case, imagining that such are ridiculous.
I suggest, it is time for you to check the quality of your yardsticks.
KFkairosfocus
December 28, 2017
December
12
Dec
28
28
2017
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT
KF
Sorry, but it has been shown that all statements in an argument context are pervaded by moral considerations such as duties of care to truth, fairness, justice, soundness of logic, etc.
If you want to use rediculous arguments, that is your choice. According to your logic, “the sky is blue” and “water is wet” are moral statement. We all know that these are statements of fact (or not) with no moral value one way or the other. The moral aspect is the act of telling the truth or not. The action, not the statement.
In all of your words you have never addressed my claim that all moral actions are open to questioning. I would even go as far as to say that this is a self evident truth. I am not talking about whether they SHOULD be open to questioning, but about whether they ARE open to questioning.JSmith
December 28, 2017
December
12
Dec
28
28
2017
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT
KF @ 40: "... all statements in an argument context are pervaded by moral considerations such as duties of care to truth, fairness, justice, soundness of logic, etc."
Brilliant.Truth Will Set You Free
December 28, 2017
December
12
Dec
28
28
2017
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT
JS: re Since my statement wasn’t a moral statement, I don’t get the point of your question. Sorry, but it has been shown that all statements in an argument context are pervaded by moral considerations such as duties of care to truth, fairness, justice, soundness of logic, etc. There are no statements or acts of mind that do not imply these issues. You do not have to explicitly address a typical moral issue for the duties of moral governance to be at work. And if you do imply that you have no duties of care to truth, fairness sound reasoning etc then you are the worst kind of nihilist and cynical manipulator. So, in prudence we would have to disregard anything you have to say on any subject of interest as of zero credibility. That is one of the key errors in your reasoning. KFkairosfocus
December 28, 2017
December
12
Dec
28
28
2017
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT
CR, you neatly omitted that there is a serious misrepresentation of the trinity doctrine of the Christian church, which erects a strawman. This is not a matter of disagreement on theology, but of basic error of fact as to what Christians believe and teach. This is then used to construct a whole concept of shirk as a sin of Christians which then is used to rationalise all sorts of other things on the general arraignment as of inherently suspect character, cf Q 9:29 in context and onward issues of dhimmitude -- worse than apartheid. This is deeply disqualifying as to the basic credibility of the source of the Quran. That is, there is something absolutely central that is not right. Likewise, as regards the trial and crucifixion of Jesus per order of the local Governor, that is about as well authenticated a fact of history as we are going to get from C1. So, if the Quran gets that wrong too, something is deeply wrong here. Meanwhile, you go on and on, on rhetorical games on a tangent. Red herring led to strawman game over, that is not germane to the thread. Kindly cf the OP and respond to the subject: warranted credible truth as possible and actual for morals, i.e. objective moral knowledge.The focal issue FYI is epistemology not theology; until the epistemology is sorted out the theology and ethics etc cannot move beyond going in futile circles. KF
PS: No authority -- individual or institutional -- is better than the underlying warrant per facts, reasoning and underlying assumptions. And on matters of science not even moral certainty is typically possible on theoretical frameworks as opposed to facts of observation. The OP is addressing cases of warrant to self evidence in general and as touching key ethical matters. This basic structure then sets up onward responsible thought and action on matters not subject to so high a standard. Matters that are pervasive and of enormous importance. Where, much is at stake.kairosfocus
December 28, 2017
December
12
Dec
28
28
2017
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT
@Axel
rvb8, we earn from authorities. It’s why schools and universities base their curricula on the works of authorities in the different areas, rather than those of unknown individuals, who might or might not be towering geniuses, who changes the paradigm pursued by the current authorities, generally until such time as mathematical proofs establish the new understanding. It’s safer.
And, like plumb lines and microscopes, we have good explanations as to why we should defer to schools, universities and other figures. We do not merely accept their claims without assuming some process is in place in which criticism has been applied in some way or another.critical rationalist
December 28, 2017
December
12
Dec
28
28
2017
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT
@KF
CR: Qur’an is the verbatim word and the final divine revelation of God?
KF: CR, I expected that reaction, never mind my caution on the obvious issues. Kindly cf here and here, also this. Much more can be said.
A quick scan of the pages you referenced suggests you think the Qur’an is not the verbatim word and the final divine revelation of God because...
- It conflicts with Biblical idea of fallen man
- It suggest that Christ wasn't crucified, but taken to be by God's side
- It conflicts with Christian ideas about salvation
- It suggests the Bible has been corrupt
From this wikipedia entry....
The issue of the crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus (Isa) is rejected by most (not all[1]) Muslims, but similar to Christians they believe that Jesus will return before the end of time.[2] Most Muslims believe Jesus was not crucified, but was raised bodily to heaven by God, a similar belief is found in the Gospel of Basilides,[3][4][5][6] the text of which is lost save for reports of it by other early scholars like Origen (c. 185 – c. 254). Basilides (??????????), was a leading theologian of Gnostic tendencies, who had taught in Alexandria in the second quarter of the second century. However, this view is disregarded by mainstream Christianity which only accepts the four gospels contained in the New Testament as genuine; the other twenty-eight, as heretical.[citation needed]
Depending on the interpretation of the following verse, Muslim scholars have abstracted different opinions. Some believe that in the Biblical account, Jesus's crucifixion did not last long enough for him to die, while others opine that God gave someone Jesus's appearance or someone else replaced Jesus and the executioners thought the victim was Jesus, causing everyone to believe that Jesus was crucified. A third explanation could be that Jesus was nailed to a cross, but as his body is immortal he did not "die" or was not "crucified" [to death]; it only appeared so (this view is rare). In opposition to the second and third foregoing proposals, yet others maintain that God does not use deceit and therefore they contend that crucifixion just did not occur. The basis of all of these beliefs is the interpretation of this verse in the Qur'an:
That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-
Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;-
Many of these views are compatible with the claims that "there is good historical evidence for the claims that Jesus suffered under Pontius Pilate, died on a cross and rose from the dead," The idea that Jesus was 100% man and 100% God (what kind of math is that?) doesn't seem to preclude Jesus not being susceptible to crucifixion, with the actual cause of "death" being Allah taking him to heaven with him. Or he could have been taken moments before he actually died, etc. Why you've constrained such a being in this particular sense doesn't, well, make sense.
Regardless, this is an example of making arguments regarding which infallible source you should defer to and how to interpret that infallible source. You can no way of infallibly identifying or interpret said source. Reason always comes first.
So, there you were, visiting the Vatican and you took a wrong turn and found yourself witnessing the pope as he solemnly declared that there is no force of gravity. You happened to have purchased, from the souvenir shop, a checklist of the official requirements for a declaration to count as ex cathedra, and you took the trouble to verify that each one was met. None of this constitutes direct observation of what you need to know. Did you observe infallibly that it was the pope? Did you do a DNA test? Can you be certain that souvenir checklists never contain typos? And how is your church Latin? Was your translation of the crucial phrase “no force of gravity” infallible? Have you never mistranslated anything?
The fact is, there’s nothing infallible about “direct experience” either. Indeed, experience is never direct. It is a sort of virtual reality, created by our brains using sketchy and flawed sensory clues, given substance only by fallible expectations, explanations, and interpretations. Those can easily be more mistaken than the testimony of the passing hobo. If you doubt this, look at the work of psychologists Christopher Chabris and Daniel Simons, and verify by direct experience the fallibility of your own direct experience. Furthermore, the idea that your reminiscences are infallible is also heresy by the very doctrine that you are faithful to.
I’ll tell you what really happened3. You witnessed a dress rehearsal. The real ex cathedra ceremony was on the following day. In order not to make the declaration a day early, they substituted for the real text (which was about some arcane theological issue, not gravity) a lorem-ipsum-type placeholder that they deemed so absurd that any serious listener would immediately realize that that’s what it was.
And indeed, you did realize this; and as a result, you reinterpreted your “direct experience,” which was identical to that of witnessing an ex cathedra declaration, as not being one. Precisely by reasoning that the content of the declaration was absurd, you concluded that you didn’t have to believe it. Which is also what you would have done if you hadn’t believed the infallibility doctrine.
You remain a believer, serious about giving your faith absolute priority over your own “unaided” reason (as reason is called in these contexts). But that very seriousness has forced you to decide first on the substance of the issue, using reason, and only then whether to defer to the infallible authority. This is neither fluke nor paradox. It is simply that if you take ideas seriously, there is no escape, even in dogma and faith, from the obligation to use reason and to give it priority over dogma, faith, and obedience.
The real pope is unlikely to make an ex cathedra statement about gravity, and therefore you may be lucky enough never to encounter this particular case of the dilemma. Also, the real pope doesn’t just pull ex cathedra statements out of a hat. They’re hammered out by a team of expert advisors trying their best to weed out mistakes, a process structurally not unlike peer review. But if your faith in papal infallibility depends on reassuring yourself of things like that, then that just goes to show that for you, reason takes priority over faith.
It is hard to contain reason within bounds. If you take your faith sufficiently seriously you may realize that it is not only the printers who are fallible in stating the rules for ex cathedra, but also the committee that wrote down those rules. And then that nothing can infallibly tell you what is infallible, nor what is probable. It is precisely because you, being fallible and having no infallible access to the infallible authority, no infallible way of interpreting what the authority means, and no infallible means of identifying an infallible authority in the first place, that infallibility cannot help you before reason has had its say.
A related useful thing that faith tells you, if you take it seriously enough, is that the great majority of people who believe something on faith, in fact believe falsehoods. Hence, faith is insufficient for true belief. As the Nobel-Prize-winning biologist Peter Medawar said: “the intensity of the conviction that a hypothesis is true has no bearing on whether it is true or not4.”
My point being, the particular theological ideas about salvation, etc., which Islam conflicts with, are ones that you personally find appealing. And when questioned, you have some kind of rational argument as to why you should defer to that source, opposed to some other source. The problem is, this claim is easily varied. God, being all powerful and all knowing could have taken Jesus before his death, etc. There is no hard to vary account for salvation. Jesus' divine side didn't have any blood to shed. And we used to think blood had some magical property of life. But we no longer think this is the case. So, the whole idea of Christ's blood being the reason for our salvation appears to be an easily varied explanation that is based on ancient ideas about the life giving properties of blood.critical rationalist
December 28, 2017
December
12
Dec
28
28
2017
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT
O
One problem with Smith’s call for rational debate on self-evident truths is that his preferred world view cannot house any “reasoning capabilities” whatsoever. As most of us know, a materialistic world is necessarily an utterly moronic world.
If you have read my comments you will know that I am not a materialist. Do you have any legitimate argument against my statement?JSmith
December 28, 2017
December
12
Dec
28
28
2017
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT
B
ALL purported moral actions are open to be questioned? — ALL moral actions without exception?
Are you absolutely sure about that? — I mean, absolutely sure morally? — absolutely sure unquestionably?
Since my statement wasn’t a moral statement, I don’t get the point of your question.
I stand by by statement as being factually accurate. There is not a single moral action that is not open to questioning. If you can provide evidence of this not being the case, feel free to provide it. So far all that I have seen is righteous outrage against the statement without any supporting evidence.JSmith
December 28, 2017
December
12
Dec
28
28
2017
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT
rvb8, we earn from authorities. It's why schools and universities base their curricula on the works of authorities in the different areas, rather than those of unknown individuals, who might or might not be towering geniuses, who changes the paradigm pursued by the current authorities, generally until such time as mathematical proofs establish the new understanding. It's safer.Axel
December 28, 2017
December
12
Dec
28
28
2017
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT
KF @ 26 to rvb8: "That is a worldviews argument, not a theological one, and certainly not a Christian religious — how obviously you seem to view this word in that context as a dirty word — one."
Ah, yes. Rvb8 hates everything theistic, but he reserves his most visceral hate for Christianity. He is a nasty, sneering sort of bloke. A true hater.
Somebody needs a hug!Truth Will Set You Free
December 28, 2017
December
12
Dec
28
28
2017
01:52 AM
1
01
52
AM
PDT
rvb8 @ 15: Christian morality still holds sway. Always will.Truth Will Set You Free
December 28, 2017
December
12
Dec
28
28
2017
01:44 AM
1
01
44
AM
PDT
Seversky @ 24: Objective. I believe that rape is objectively wrong, and not just a matter of subjective cultural choice or personal opinion. If you agree, then you have taken a big step toward theism. Congratulations.
Also, please re-read my original post (below) and try to spot the essential points:
"No. Morals are merely subjective opinions… under a/mat faith-based philosophy."
Here's a hint. Pay close attention to the word "merely."
Here's another hint. Pay close attention to the phrase "under a/mat faith-based philosophy."Truth Will Set You Free
December 28, 2017
December
12
Dec
28
28
2017
01:14 AM
1
01
14
AM
PDT
F/N: On plumblines, just for illustration.
Consider a 100 Tonne house, core at 10 m from a classic Egyptian square with a 1 m string and 0.1 kg bob.
F-side = 6.674e-11 x (0.1 x 100e3)/(10^2)
= 6.67e-9 N
F-vert = 0.1 x 9.81 = 0.981 N
In short, the side force is probably less than that due to muscle shiver etc.
For the original Carpentry and masonry purposes, a plumbline is an excellent standard of what is accurately straight and upright. In illustration terms, it is apt.
The problem at work is clinging to a crooked yardstick as standard for straightness and accuracy, and something naturally straight and upright is more than good enough as a corrective.
And, those who cling to crookedness in the face of what is naturally straight and upright imply much about themselves.
KFkairosfocus
December 28, 2017
December
12
Dec
28
28
2017
12:59 AM
12
12
59
AM
PDT
CR, you evidently have failed to grasp the significance of distinct identity and its import for even how you can compose and address an objection. You are forced to rely on what you would deny in order to object. Clue no. 1. Further, you fail to understand the difference between a basic belief and a well-warranted, properly basic belief. In the cases above, to self-evidence. Your particular hobby-horse seems to lead you to imagine that you can simply put up an intellectual IOU on first principles of right reason. Meanwhile, just to object, you had to rely on distinct identity all along the chain of objection. You are trying to saw off the branch on which you are sitting. KF
PS: Here is a classic, 2,000 year old observation on a key point:
1 Cor 14:7 Yet even lifeless things, whether flute or harp, when producing a sound, if they do not produce distinct [musical] tones, how will anyone [listening] know what is piped or played? 8 And if the [war] bugle produces an indistinct sound, who will prepare himself for battle? 9 So it is with you, if you speak words [in an unknown tongue] that are not intelligible and clear, how will anyone understand what you are saying? You will be talking into the air [wasting your breath]! [AMP]
kairosfocus
December 28, 2017
December
12
Dec
28
28
2017
12:22 AM
12
12
22
AM
PDT
Seversky, it seems you have failed to read the OP before commenting with intent to object. FYI, there is warrant offered up to and including concrete cases as to why there is objective moral knowledge. I suggest you start from the case of a kidnapped, sexually brutalised, murdered child, then come back to us on why it is only a matter of subjective perceptions, might and manipulation that he had a right to his live and to the inviolability of his person. Your attempted objection to basic arithmetic truths fails and does so in a way that after years of objecting here at UD you have not yet grasped the fairly simple concept of what a self-evident truth is. KFkairosfocus
December 28, 2017
December
12
Dec
28
28
2017
12:15 AM
12
12
15
AM
PDT
RVB8, FYI, I cited Plato as a case in point from classical times on the amorality and nihilism of the evolutionary materialist framework, against the well known backdrop of the collapse of the Athenian democratic experiment through the Peloponnesian war. For example, ponder Alcibiades as a promising youth influenced by the currents of thought at that time and where he ended up, why; especially his strange relationship with Socrates. Plato is not being cited as a blindly adhered to authority. Your argument by sneering dismissal collapses. As for your further sneer at Christian "religious" morality, a simple glance at the OP will suffice to show that the subject is first objectivity of knowledge then of moral knowledge for us as morally governed creatures. In that context I have pointed to the significance of the IS-OUGHT gap and the only serious candidate solution, which happens to be generic ethical theism. That is a worldviews argument, not a theological one, and certainly not a Christian religious -- how obviously you seem to view this word in that context as a dirty word -- one. It is evident that you have sought to sneer and dismiss rather than carefully ponder. Fundamentally un-serious. I suggest you would be well advised to think again. KFkairosfocus
KF, 32: >>Pardon, but it is now further evident that you have not seen the significance of self-evident truth in general.
From this world partition, we instantly see that A is itself, and no x can be (A AND ~A), also that any x is (A X-OR ~A). That is, from distinct identity, the three first principles of right reason are immediately present: Laws of Identity, Non-Contradiction and Excluded Middle.
Much more can be said, but the above is sufficient to show that there are literally infinitely many things that we may know with utter certainty, starting from a few that are self-evident. But also, such SET’s are insufficient to construct a worldview; they serve as plumbline tests for worldviews.
