Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

ID Website Targeted to Disrupt Conference in Colorado

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Anika Smith has reported at Evolution News and Views an attack which appears to be original to Darwinists. Although the attackers are, as yet, anonymous, the apparent motivation was to obfuscate a conference featuring leading Intelligent Design proponents scheduled this weekend at Douglas County Event Center in Castle Rock, Colorado.

Earlier this month the Shepherd Project Ministries’ website was breached using a “brute force attack” to break the password. The hackers then deleted webpages containing information about an upcoming conference featuring Discovery Institute speakers Stephen Meyer, Michael Behe, David Berlinski, and John West.

“No question whatsoever about [what] they were targeting,” said Shepherd Project Executive Director Craig Smith. “That was brazen. We were a little stunned, to be perfectly honest. We had seen some hostile language about the conference, but honestly we just assumed it was cyber-flaming. We didn’t really expect or anticipate any kind of actual attack.”

Mr. Smith, welcome to the world of ID and it’s sometimes vicious counterparts known as Darwinists, won’t you sit down and make yourself at home.

The web pages were re-instated, and additional security was implemented to avoid this nonsense. However, that apparently wasn’t enough,

[B]ut since then a distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack crippled and even crashed the Shepherd Project website, preventing many from registering for the intelligent design conference. These attacks involve multiple people coordinated in an attempt to make a website unavailable, shutting down access to information in a form of modern-day book-burning.

Modern-Day book burning is right. Anika Smith also has a podcast at Intelligent Design The Future in which she and the Shepherd Project’s Craig Smith discuss the incident. This is the third blog I’ve written in just a few weeks about censorship originating with Darwinists (if, indeed, these attackers are found to be such, which, given the escalation of online attacks that Craig Smith mentions, seems likely). There was the John McWhorter and Michael Behe bloggingheads fiasco, the California Science Center’s reneging on showing Darwin’s Dilemma, and now this. Victor Hugo is attributed with saying that “Nothing else in the world… not all the armies… is so powerful as an idea whose time has come.” Agreed.

Comments
Brent, Arguing with Hoki may be futile, if someone doesn't perceive morality, then argument cannot bring them to see it. They are usually more interested in how to do whatever they want and avoid getting caught, or how to get out of jail if they have been caught, because they are of the mindset that everyone who is keeping them suppressed by not letting them do whatever they want is suffering from a delusion. Put yourself in their shoes, imagine if you considered everyone around you who believed in real morality to be delusional. Morality is always the premise, not the conclusion, and if someone doesn't see it, then no argument can bring someone to it. It is like trying to argue with someone who doesn't understand and cannot be got to just "see" first principles in logic. This is ground level zero, and is someone will not begin there, you can't bring them there.Clive Hayden
November 4, 2009
November
11
Nov
4
04
2009
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT
Yes, a lot of people would consider your answer morally unacceptable even if you were to be objectively morally right. The same people would probably be glad that you were not born into a culture where such behaviour was considered acceptable. You know, like Germany in the 1930’s and 40’s.
"Groan." Hoki, I am not the one who believes the culture in which I live dictates morals, YOU ARE! If I knew that my culture accepted and lived according to objective morality, I would support and keep in line with that culture. If that culture did not live according to known objective morality, I would not support or keep in line with it, you know, like, "Give me liberty or give me death" sort of thing. Many have willingly laid down their lives for this objective morality that you refuse to admit exists. Now, concerning your arguments about God . . . oh, where to start. Listen, I'm so sick of seeing this from atheists. They use the word God (usually antagonistically using a lower-case "g"), but deny any attributes to this "God" they speak of which must be true of God or else we aren't talking God at all. That's what vjtorley was kindly pointing out to you, and the basic reason for me weighing in on this thread at all, namely, materialist and atheists favorite method of argument, unashamed equivocation. They use a word but deny even the foundational meaning of that word outright. In summary, you and other atheists haven't ever even argued against the existence of God at all, but only a twisted atheist concept that is supposed to be God, but which never could have been to begin with. In light of this I can accept your argument. Truly, their is no god . . . at least not the one you "believe" in. It would be funny if it weren't so sad. Atheists have to, and do believe in God . . ., they must in order to have something to throw their stones at.Brent
November 3, 2009
November
11
Nov
3
03
2009
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT
Brent, Seems like my last answer to this post got lost somewhere along the way. I'll try again. Here you are being consistent, at least in a way. You, and others, continue to assert that morality can exist while divorced of its inherent objective quality. You are consistently claiming that I say that "inobjective" morality can exist whereas I'm really saying that you don't know what objective moral codes exist. The two are different, you know. Please refrain from putting words into my mouth. You say you will “for the sake of argument” grant that God exists, but then say that He doesn’t by claiming we couldn’t know who He was if He did. Sorry, that’s just a sloppy attempt at an argument. I can do nothing other than point out its sloppiness to you. You “concede” a point with the right hand while taking it all back with the left and then act as if you’ve actually said something. In an envelope which we can't examine is written a number between zero and infinity. I am, here, at the same time claiming a number exists and that we can't know anything about it. Your response to me is what is sloppy. Yes, I would. Does this question have any significance whatsoever? Yes, a lot of people would consider your answer morally unacceptable even if you were to be objectively morally right. The same people would probably be glad that you were not born into a culture where such behaviour was considered acceptable. You know, like Germany in the 1930's and 40's.Hoki
November 3, 2009
November
11
Nov
3
03
2009
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT
vjtorley, Good one. Why would I possibly accept your two postulates?Hoki
November 3, 2009
November
11
Nov
3
03
2009
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT
Hoki (#69) You wrote:
There are an infinite number of potential gods, having an infinite number of moral decrees. The probability of you following the correct moral code is, in other words, infinitely small.
Not so, if we accept two reasonable postulates: (1) God is a necessary being (true by definition). (2) Anything with defining attributes which are (i) measurable, (ii) variable, (iii) separable (such as a mere concatenation or aggregation of attributes), or (iv) ad hoc, is contingent (and hence not God). For a defense of (2), you might like to read Dr. Robert Koons' A New Look at the Cosmological Argument. If you accept premise (2), then that severely restricts your range of possible deities. For instance, deities with the following defining attributes are excluded from the outset: being 66 feet tall, being three-footed, or being blue (these are all quantifiable and hence measurable attributes); being good on Tuesdays and bad on Wednesdays (this is a variable attribute); being funny AND courageous (this is a concatenation of attributes); and being fond of teachers (this is an ad hoc attribute). What we're left with are general, non-quantifiable, invariable and non-arbitrary defining attributes only, as fitting defining attributes for a proper Deity. And if you wish to propose a Deity with more than one defining attribute, you have to tie them all together in a way that makes them metaphysically inseparable. Anything less than that, and what you've got doesn't deserve to be called a Deity any more than you or I do. Are you still sure that the range of all possible moral codes that could be decreed by a proper Deity is infinite?vjtorley
November 3, 2009
November
11
Nov
3
03
2009
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT
Oramus, Your argument fails for the simple reason that it is not possible for there to be infinite Gods. There is and can only be infinite descriptions of God. God, by definition is indivisible. Nothing can arise from within Him that can separate itself from Him entirely and then overtake or compete with Him for control. Wonderful. There can only be one god. Therefore, there can only be the kind of god I'm thinking about. Good argument, there.Hoki
November 2, 2009
November
11
Nov
2
02
2009
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT
Hoki, Here you are being consistent, at least in a way. You, and others, continue to assert that morality can exist while divorced of its inherent objective quality. That's just willing away a definition of a word for the purpose of claiming one can be moral without submitting to anything they may not want to. In your last post, you do the same thing with God. You say you will "for the sake of argument" grant that God exists, but then say that He doesn't by claiming we couldn't know who He was if He did. Sorry, that's just a sloppy attempt at an argument. I can do nothing other than point out its sloppiness to you. You "concede" a point with the right hand while taking it all back with the left and then act as if you've actually said something.
If God, The Single Creator of everything, did indeed exist, and decreed that exterminating the jews was a moral act, would you support, or even take part, in the extermination of jews?
I thought we already played this game. Yes, I would. Does this question have any significance whatsoever?Brent
November 2, 2009
November
11
Nov
2
02
2009
01:33 AM
1
01
33
AM
PDT
Hoki, Your argument fails for the simple reason that it is not possible for there to be infinite Gods. There is and can only be infinite descriptions of God. God, by definition is indivisible. Nothing can arise from within Him that can separate itself from Him entirely and then overtake or compete with Him for control. This is the reality Lucifer understands but unfortunatel does not accept. He demands a piece-a-de-pie, but God can't provide it without diminishing Himself, which would set off His own destruction. You can't give what you don't have. God does not have the luxury of entertaining His creation's demand for consensus government. He can delegate, but can't share. Different animals.
There are an infinite number of potential gods, having an infinite number of moral decrees. The probability of you following the correct moral code is, in other words, infinitely small. In other words, you don’t know what the moral code is. Stop throwing stones.
Oramus
November 1, 2009
November
11
Nov
1
01
2009
11:34 PM
11
11
34
PM
PDT
Brent, But, let me boil your argument down for you: Objective morality doesn’t exist because I refuse to believe in God (even though it’s waaaay more rational than darwinist/materialist atheism). Bzzzt. That is not my argument. I'll try again. For the sake of argument, I'll give you that there is a god. For the sake of argument, I'll give you that that god has decreed an objective morality. The problem now is that we don't know which god exists and what it's morals are. There are an infinite number of potential gods, having an infinite number of moral decrees. The probability of you following the correct moral code is, in other words, infinitely small. In other words, you don't know what the moral code is. Stop throwing stones. Shall I try to boil down your argument for you?: Objective morality exists because I believe I know that there is a god and, moreover, I know what moral decrees that god has. Powerful argument there. Perhaps you should try to counter my real argument instead of your own strawman thereof? Let me ask you this: If God, The Single Creator of everything, did indeed exist, would you accept that whatever God decreed was the objective morality? Why not. I'll run with that hypothetical. Let me ask you this: If God, The Single Creator of everything, did indeed exist, and decreed that exterminating the jews was a moral act, would you support, or even take part, in the extermination of jews?Hoki
November 1, 2009
November
11
Nov
1
01
2009
10:16 PM
10
10
16
PM
PDT
Hoki, I'm sorry if it irritates you that I'd rather stick closely to my main point rather than try to cover every other point, even if related. It's the main reason that internet forums are more often than not unproductive, at least concerning anything slightly controversial or that people have strong feelings about. But, let me boil your argument down for you: Objective morality doesn't exist because I refuse to believe in God (even though it's waaaay more rational than darwinist/materialist atheism). Powerful argument there. Let me ask you this: If God, The Single Creator of everything, did indeed exist, would you accept that whatever God decreed was the objective morality?Brent
November 1, 2009
November
11
Nov
1
01
2009
07:34 PM
7
07
34
PM
PDT
Is a gun, lying on a table, right or wrong or neither? If a person picks up that gun and shoots another person is that action right or wrong?
Seversky, I'm glad you chose a gun as an example? It is excellent. What were guns designed for? Killing game? Only? When a gun was designed, were all possible uses of this object considered? Were the ramifictions of using a gun in all possible ways followed through? What was the results of this analysis? Did the possible consequences of many people dyeing outweigh the convenience of killing game in an easy manner? A designer runs through all possibilities before making a decision as to the 'morality' of an action? Does the end result contribute to the cohesion of the overall design? Or does the end result in a high cost to benefit ratio that causes the inevitable if not immediate corruption of the design? So a gun, as object, represents the result of Man's incomplete moral analysis. We know guns are immoral precisely because we do not have the maturity to deal with them. If we did have the maturity to deal with them, we would no longer be interested in using them, even for killing game. That is wisdom at work, the highest plane of the intellect.Oramus
November 1, 2009
November
11
Nov
1
01
2009
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT
Brent, Remember that my only point, and how this discussion got started, was, simply, that without there being an objective morality then we are not, by definition, really talking morality at all. Again, the word “right” that pops up in every definition tells us that. So, since it has been believed that right and wrong actually exist for as far back as we can see, it is then your burden to show that they are really just “invisible attributes.” Nonetheless, I’ll say that every discussion on this board that revolves around the logical argument and conclusion that God does, in fact, exist, is the same one that answers your question. Yes, I believe that the moral “code” present in our lives makes no sense outside of the existence of God. You know what they say about people and glass houses, don't you? Your "side" keep harping on about how their "opponents" lack something (objective morals, in this instance). What seems to be totally lost on you is that you haven't got any either. Surely, you're not expecting us to take "a lot of people belive so" or "morality makes no sense otherwise" as serious justifications, are you? Come on "objectivists". Show us why you have morals that others don't!Hoki
November 1, 2009
November
11
Nov
1
01
2009
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT
Seversky, Perhaps in keeping a bit with the teaching of our Lord about going the extra mile, I'd like to give you a bit of friendly advice. If you are going to pretend anything toward honest dialogue concerning the Bible, Christianity, Jesus, etc., it would make you a bit more believable if you'd leave the rabid and baseless twisting of said topics into contortions of something altogether different out of your posts. But then, if you cannot bring yourself to do that, perhaps you can find a way to market yourself as a professional strawman builder. There! Never say that no one on this board tried to help you.
Explain how there can be an objective morality by any normal usage of the word “objective”.
Well, let's start, hopefully, simply. I assume that we could both agree that it is right for children to obey their parents, yes? If we can, then we would agree that, objectively, children are morally obligated to do, or not do, what their parents tell them. This is just an attempt to show, in as common a ground as may be possible between us, what objective morality might look like. And, before I go any further in this discussion, let me make it clear that I'm prepending the words "moral" and "morality" with the word "objective" only for the sake of this argument. My whole point is that, in reality, morality actually incorporates that concept, and without doing so is no longer what the word "moral" has always been meant to convey.Brent
November 1, 2009
November
11
Nov
1
01
2009
02:54 AM
2
02
54
AM
PDT
Hoki,
I think that now would be a really good time for you to to show – objectively – why what the Nazis did was wrong.
Not really. Remember that my only point, and how this discussion got started, was, simply, that without there being an objective morality then we are not, by definition, really talking morality at all. Again, the word "right" that pops up in every definition tells us that. So, since it has been believed that right and wrong actually exist for as far back as we can see, it is then your burden to show that they are really just "invisible attributes." Nonetheless, I'll say that every discussion on this board that revolves around the logical argument and conclusion that God does, in fact, exist, is the same one that answers your question. Yes, I believe that the moral "code" present in our lives makes no sense outside of the existence of God.Brent
November 1, 2009
November
11
Nov
1
01
2009
02:26 AM
2
02
26
AM
PDT
Brent @ 59
Let me ask you this, then: Was Hitler and Nazi Germany really wrong? or did it just happen to be that enough people preferred that they should be stopped?
Is a gun, lying on a table, right or wrong or neither? If a person picks up that gun and shoots another person is that action right or wrong? Are objects right or wrong or is it only the actions of intelligent agents that are right are wrong? And, as in the Euthyphro Dilemma, are objects or actions intrinsically right or wrong or is that just a judgement made by an intelligent observer, whether it be a deity or a just a human being? Explain how there can be an objective morality by any normal usage of the word "objective". If you are referring to the prescriptions of Christian morality they are as baseless as you allege those of secular society to be. Their authority depends on their being the revelation of the Christian God. Yet we have absolutely no evidence for the existence of such a being. The primary text for the claim of His existence is undermined by inconsistencies and contradictions. If taken literally, the picture it paints of God in the Old Testament is one who behaves in ways that today we would judge to be highly immoral. If we assume that the meaning is obscured by a literary style which employs metaphor and allegory, we are also admitting that the meaning becomes a matter of interpretation. That would also apply to any morality inferred from the text. So much for objectivity there. As for the basis of secular morality, it is true that, in principle, everyone could behave exactly as they please, if they chose. As individuals, however, human beings are weak and vulnerable. Co-operating in groups, however, can earn enormous benefits in terms of personal survival. The stability and cohesion of such groups depends, in part, of a very simple principle known as the Golden Rule or 'you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours'. The function of moral prescriptions and ethical codes of conduct are to regulate the behavior of human beings towards one another in society. If I want my interests to be respected and upheld by others then I must do the same for theirs. I do not want to be killed prematurely so I must agree not to kill others. Thus, what we have is not an ill-defined claim of an objective morality but, rather, a definition of a collective morality based on common interests; something that can be placed on a much firmer rational basis than religious alternatives based, by some accounts, on the whims of a Creator with an unpleasant predilection for abusing and killing His creations. Seversky
October 31, 2009
October
10
Oct
31
31
2009
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT
Brent: Let me ask you this, then: Was Hitler and Nazi Germany really wrong? or did it just happen to be that enough people preferred that they should be stopped? Can you, in your current understanding, seriously not make a stand and say that what happened was objectively wrong? I think that now would be a really good time for you to to show - objectively - why what the Nazis did was wrong.Hoki
October 31, 2009
October
10
Oct
31
31
2009
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT
the wrongness lies in people’s “preferences”
But who says that "people's 'preferences'" are what really matters—that it's "right" because someone or many people prefer it, or wrong because they don't? You have found an "ought", Mark! Congratulations!Brent
October 31, 2009
October
10
Oct
31
31
2009
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT
#58 The trouble is that it is not so clear what it means for something to be objectively true. The wrongness of the Nazi's in the end lies in a common human horror of what they did. It was really wrong and the wrongness lies in people's "preferences" (though "preference" grossly underplays the strength of feeling involved). I, like you, condemn such evil actions. I will strive to prevent such actions and wish to punish those that commit them. I am confident that I can get others to agree with me. Can I prove mathematically or logically that what they did was wrong? No. (I can't derive an "ought" from an "is" and neither can you). Can I perceive an additional attribute of wrongness in addition to what they did? No. (You may say you can, but I have no idea what that would be like). I can point at the suffering and say "that was awful", but there isn't some additional attribute of awfulness over and above the concentration camps etc. The concentration camps are quite sufficient in themselves.Mark Frank
October 31, 2009
October
10
Oct
31
31
2009
04:24 AM
4
04
24
AM
PDT
Mark, I can't help but think that the society in which you live has conveniently insulated you from being forced to squarely deal with this issue. I can throw out any number of examples of someone doing something "wrong" and then ask you to justify the "rightness" of judging, convicting, and sentencing to some sort of punishment, but you can simply hide behind the fact that the laws are present, no oughts necessary, and our preferences are fairly well established, so no need to bother with calling it objective, right, or true. Let me ask you this, then: Was Hitler and Nazi Germany really wrong? or did it just happen to be that enough people preferred that they should be stopped? Can you, in your current understanding, seriously not make a stand and say that what happened was objectively wrong? I'm being serious here; not just trying to sling mud and make anyone look bad.Brent
October 31, 2009
October
10
Oct
31
31
2009
03:37 AM
3
03
37
AM
PDT
#55 Stop avoiding the question. Either “right” and “wrong” are not merely invisible attributes, or everything is preference. Brent - I am denying that dichotomy. It may appear that I am avoiding the question because I disagree with the assumptions underlying the question. (Have you stopped beating your wife?). I have argued for this by 1) showing another case where something is not an objective attribute and yet resolving it is far from being mere preference. 2) reminding everyone that you cannot derive an ought from an is All I have received in response from several commentators is a few mild insults and different ways of restating that morality must be an objective attribute or there would be no way of proving anything right or wrong. I can assure you I have thought about this many, many times over the 35 years since I left uni.Mark Frank
October 31, 2009
October
10
Oct
31
31
2009
12:26 AM
12
12
26
AM
PDT
#48 Me: whatever “objective” standard you invoke the friend can still say “why should I care about the standard” Clive: So what? Why should apathy mean that there is no standard? This is nothing to do with apathy. It is a deep (and very well known) problem with any claim that there is an ultimate objective moral standard. Whatever you produce as that standard it is always to ask "but why is that standard good?" For example, you may follow Aquinas in believing that there is a natural law but how do you prove that the natural law is good? The reason, as Hume pointed out, is that you cannot derive an "ought" from an "is". And you don’t find “God is goodness” as incomprehensible. It’s perfectly comprehensible, and I have no doubt that you can comprehend it. I am amazed how people on this forum claim to know what I truly believe and what I understand! I am sorry but I do find the statement incomprehensible. "Goodness" is an abstract noun referring to a property. God is a proper name. To equate the one with the other is like saying "Barack Obama is solitude". It is a category error. It would mean something to say "God is good". But of course that doesn't solve the problem of moral standards.Mark Frank
October 31, 2009
October
10
Oct
31
31
2009
12:11 AM
12
12
11
AM
PDT
Brent, Why do you think it’s a meaningful question to compare an alter universe, where wrong becomes right and everything is backwards to the way things really, presently, are, with what our obvious decisions would be in this present reality? Meaningless. You don't know what, if any, objective morals exist. You THINK that you know what these are. That is the whole point. The alternate universe you refer to might very well be this one. I remember a while back when an UD contributor made a post stating why Pascal's wager was a good wager. He was quickly corrected - even by ID supporters. And why shouldn't he have been? In order for the wager to carry any weight, you have to know what god, if any, you are supposed to believe in. This whole morality issue suffers from the same problem. Without knowing which god, if any, exists, you can't possibly know what objective morals exist. For good reason, people tend to reject Pascal's wager. Why shouldn't the same people also reject the idea that people know what objective morals exist?Hoki
October 30, 2009
October
10
Oct
30
30
2009
09:30 PM
9
09
30
PM
PDT
Mark, I know, of course, that you'll try to stop me without even thinking. The point that you are avoiding is that, without acknowledging any objective morality, and believing that "right" is just an "invisible attribute", how do you argue that I'm wrong while you're right? Stop avoiding the question. Either "right" and "wrong" are not merely invisible attributes, or everything is preference. Basically, then, might does become right.Brent
October 30, 2009
October
10
Oct
30
30
2009
08:52 PM
8
08
52
PM
PDT
Hoki,
if someone broke in to your house and performed a violent crime against you and your family, would you NOT try to stop it if you KNEW (with 100% certainty) that the perpetrator was acting objectively morally.
Of course not. Why would I? Why do you think it's a meaningful question to compare an alter universe, where wrong becomes right and everything is backwards to the way things really, presently, are, with what our obvious decisions would be in this present reality? Meaningless.Brent
October 30, 2009
October
10
Oct
30
30
2009
08:33 PM
8
08
33
PM
PDT
Are mathematics objective? Could God change His mind about the rules of mathematics every once in a while? I don't know. Could he/she/it? Is there any relevance to this?Hoki
October 30, 2009
October
10
Oct
30
30
2009
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT
Hoki,
Some morals MAY be universal, but that hardly makes them objective.
Are mathematics objective? Could God change His mind about the rules of mathematics every once in a while? Clive Hayden
October 30, 2009
October
10
Oct
30
30
2009
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT
If you’re referring to the OT Law in the 10 Commandments, the prohibition is against “murder”, which is unwarranted and unlawful taking of life, not to be mistaken with “kill” in certain circumstances such as self defense.
I think this illustrates the problem rather nicely. Even something as clear as killing someone isn't clear: how would one decide what is warranted or legal?
What is the ‘Natural Law’ requirement that you speak of? I don’t follow your question.
Ask Rude. He's the one who wrote "Morals are the natural law. The natural law is a standard of behaviour that applies to everyone at all times."Heinrich
October 30, 2009
October
10
Oct
30
30
2009
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT
Clive Hayden, why do you think that your quote somehow supports the notion of objective morality? Some morals MAY be universal, but that hardly makes them objective. Why do some of you guys seem so hung up on the notion that morals that seem persistent over time and space somehow implies some measure of objectiveness. Are you implying that objective morals couldn't change? Couldn't a god change it's mind now and then regarding acceptable behaviour?Hoki
October 30, 2009
October
10
Oct
30
30
2009
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT
Heinrich,
I would suggest that “Thou shalt not kill” is a moral statement, and yet in many countries – even democratic countries – the death penalty is legal and is used.
If you're referring to the OT Law in the 10 Commandments, the prohibition is against "murder", which is unwarranted and unlawful taking of life, not to be mistaken with "kill" in certain circumstances such as self defense.
More generally, I think you would find it difficult to find many moral statements that fulfil the “natural law” requirement: there will be cultures where they are not considered moral, or holy books that present the behaviour as normal/good. How could you claim universiality then?
What is the 'Natural Law' requirement that you speak of? I don't follow your question.Clive Hayden
October 30, 2009
October
10
Oct
30
30
2009
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT
Mark Frank,
I point out, as philosophers have done since Euthyphro, that whatever “objective” standard you invoke the friend can still say “why should I care about the standard”.
So what? Why should apathy mean that there is no standard? You can be apathetic about mathematics, but, that wouldn't mean it were subjective. The point is that if there is a wrong way, then there is a right way. Being apathetic to those facts doesn't invalidate them. And you don't find "God is goodness" as incomprehensible. It's perfectly comprehensible, and I have no doubt that you can comprehend it.Clive Hayden
October 30, 2009
October
10
Oct
30
30
2009
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply