Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Michael Egnor: Prayer during an epidemic makes sense; Jerry Coyne is scandalized

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

It started when diehard Darwinian Jerry Coyne made fun of U.S. Veep Mike Pence and colleagues praying about the coronavirus epidemic:

There’s even a picture of the virus task force praying together! We don’t need prayer; we need science! Here’s the photo, which distresses me but doesn’t surprise me… [a]fter all, one godly intervention is just as delusional as another!

Jerry Coyne, “Jesus ‘n’ Mo ‘n’ Pence” at Why Evolution Is True

Michael Egnor responded,

Evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne thinks that only fools would pray about Coronavirus. He is wrong and here is why…

If God is real, then prayer is probably the first thing you want to do in a crisis. A plea to the Boss is a fine preamble to the grunt work of managing a crisis. I’m a neurosurgeon, and I pray before each operation. It really helps.

Michael Egnor, “Why prayer is wise during a pandemic” at Mind Matters News

He goes on to offer logical proofs of the existence of God, concluding that “The prayer of the coronavirus task force is wise and wholly appropriate, for both theological and scientific reasons.”

Then Coyne replied, offering responses to specific arguments and adding,

And we don’t need a Christian community now during a pandemic: that’s been replaced by epidemiologists and, most of all, medicine and medical care, all based on materialistic science.

Finally, has Dr. Egnor asked himself this: if praying to God stops people from dying, so God has the power to cure, why did God allow coronavirus to spread in the first place? It’s not just killing off evil people, you know: it’s taking babies who haven’t even had the chance to do evil, or learn about the salvific effects of accepting Jesus. In fact, pandemics are one bit of evidence against the existence of any god who is powerful and empathic.

Jerry Coyne, “Egnor: We need to pray during this pandemic” at Why Evolution Is True

And now Michael Egnor has replied, quoting Coyne and responding:

Coyne, in reply: If there are going to be arguments for god that are convincing, they will have to be empirical ones, not theoretical lucubrations of ancient theologians.

Coyne is clueless. All valid proofs of God’s existence—and there are many—are empirical proofs. As St. Thomas observed, any proof of existence must contain empirical evidence in its premise, because a purely logical proof, which is valid for mathematics and logic, cannot demonstrate the existence of anything. That is why the ontological proof of God’s existence is invalid. You can’t, by pure reason alone, conclude that God (or anything) exists. You must have evidence.

Michael Egnor, “Jerry Coyne hasn’t got a prayer” at Mind Matters News

Egnor sums up: We are more scientifically certain of God’s existence than we are of quantum mechanics or Newtonian or relativistic gravitation. The logic is rigorous.

Over to Coyne.

See also: Michael Behe muses on design and COVID-19 Behe: … most viruses do not affect humans and may well have a positive, necessary role to play in nature of which we are currently unaware. (I would bet on it.) From time to time a storm arises in the virosphere and affects humans. But that’s no reason to think either that viruses weren’t designed or that the designer of viruses isn’t good.

Comments
TF, in addition, the first duties of responsible reason pivot on our being significantly free and are manifestly inescapable. Try to imagine a society in which just a large minority habitually disregard truth, prudence, first principles of right reason, respect for neighbour/rights, fairness, justice etc. Communication would be impossible [save with possibly calibrated trust], transactions would be unreliable, law, law enforcement and courts would be oppressive or capricious, government would be a grand con game. Collapse would follow, quickly. KFkairosfocus
March 19, 2020
March
03
Mar
19
19
2020
01:59 AM
1
01
59
AM
PDT
@55 Seversky I am the Lord thy God. Says who? Mmm... What a weird question. The Lord thy God.
Sounds pretty tyrannical to me.
Mmm... No freedom within the evolutive paradigm:
"Your decisions result from molecular-based electrical impulses and chemical substances transmitted from one brain cell to another. These molecules must obey the laws of physics, so the outputs of our brain—our "choices"—are dictated by those laws." Jerry Coyne, the dim-witted biologist https://www.chronicle.com/article/Jerry-A-Coyne-You-Dont-Have/131165
Truthfreedom
March 18, 2020
March
03
Mar
18
18
2020
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT
It's very telling that all seversky can do is quote-mine the 10 commandments.ET
March 18, 2020
March
03
Mar
18
18
2020
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT
Rom 13kairosfocus
March 18, 2020
March
03
Mar
18
18
2020
01:25 AM
1
01
25
AM
PDT
ET & TF (attn Sev): I think the do no harm to neighbour principle, as drawn out by Paul in Ac 13, expresses that respect/ love for neighbour that is at the heart of those first duties, fairness and justice:
Rom 13:8 [a]Owe nothing to anyone except to [b]love and seek the best for one another; for he who [unselfishly] loves his neighbor has fulfilled the [essence of the] law [relating to one’s fellowman]. 9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not covet,” and any other commandment are summed up in this statement: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor [it never hurts anyone]. Therefore [unselfish] love is the fulfillment of the Law.
What is now largely forgotten, is that the root of the Common Law tradition, Arthur's Book of Dooms, literally begins with the decalogue. And this is how Locke grounds what would become modern liberty and democratic self government:
[2nd Treatise on Civil Gov't, Ch 2 sec. 5:] . . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [This directly echoes St. Paul in Rom 2: "14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them . . . " and 13: "9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law . . . " Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [Eccl. Polity ,preface, Bk I, "ch." 8, p.80, cf. here. Emphasis added.] [Augmented citation, Locke, Second Treatise on Civil Government, Ch 2 Sect. 5. ]
Seversky is setting up and knocking over a strawman. And note, his appeal to objectivity: thus to prudent warrant on truth and first principles of right reason . . . he cannot escape what he has evaded, the appeal to first duties of reason. So, he, too shows how is and ought are entangled in our reasoning. I just note, on his attempt to deride the first table, that it is clear that the IS-OUGHT gap is real, that we -- including him -- cannot but appeal to first duties of reason, and that therefore oughtness is inextricably intertwined with all of our rationality. If the IS-OUGHT gap is not bridged in the only possible place [post Hume and even post Plato] . . . the root of reality . . . it cannot be bridged, on pain of ungrounded ought. There is precisely one serious candidate, after centuries of debates on comparative difficulties. If you doubt, just put up another _____ and warrant per factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory power ____ . Namely, the inherently good and utterly wise Creator-God, a necessary and maximally great being; worthy of our loyalty and of the responsible, reasonable service of doing the good that accords with our evident nature. Where, many centuries before we could understand it philosophically, the very name, Yahweh [often rendered Jehovah] expresses necessary being self-existence, I AM THAT I AM. As we see to our sorrow, respect for the root of reality is the foundation of moral government and just law. We see the ongoing consequence of this, the enabling of the ongoing worst holocaust in history, the slaughter of our living posterity in the womb at a reported rate of nearly a million further victims per week. I tremble, then, at our worse guilt than that addressed by Lincoln:
One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by war; while the government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with, or even before, the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes his aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered—that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has his own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses! for it must needs be that offenses come; but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through his appointed time, he now wills to remove, and that he gives to both North and South this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to him? Fondly do we hope—fervently do we pray—that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said, "The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."
We should be ashamed and repent as a civilisation. KFkairosfocus
March 18, 2020
March
03
Mar
18
18
2020
01:24 AM
1
01
24
AM
PDT
EG, kindly note 13 above, and particularly 1 Jn 5 vv 14 - 15. Notice also, the specific context of Heine's remarks. 1831. KF PS: Heine:
Christianity — and that is its greatest merit — has somewhat mitigated that brutal German love of war, but it could not destroy it. Should that subduing talisman, the cross, be shattered [--> the Swastika, visually, is a twisted, broken cross . . do not overlook the obvious], the frenzied madness of the ancient warriors, that insane Berserk rage of which Nordic bards have spoken and sung so often, will once more burst into flame [--> an irrational battle- and blood- lust]. … The old stone gods will then rise from long ruins and rub the dust of a thousand years from their eyes, and Thor will leap to life with his giant hammer and smash the Gothic cathedrals. … … Do not smile at my advice — the advice of a dreamer who warns you against Kantians, Fichteans, and philosophers of nature. Do not smile at the visionary who anticipates the same revolution in the realm of the visible as has taken place in the spiritual. Thought precedes action as lightning precedes thunder. German thunder … comes rolling somewhat slowly, but … its crash … will be unlike anything before in the history of the world. … At that uproar the eagles of the air will drop dead [--> cf. air warfare, symbol of the USA], and lions in farthest Africa [--> the lion is a key symbol of Britain, cf. also the North African campaigns] will draw in their tails and slink away. … A play will be performed in Germany which will make the French Revolution look like an innocent idyll. [Religion and Philosophy in Germany, 1831]
PPS: I am confident we will not see such a collapse, though our sinful folly on the lines of Ac 27, has been much in evidence. That holds here, where we just confirmed a first case, a traveller from the UK to the St Patrick's festival.kairosfocus
March 18, 2020
March
03
Mar
18
18
2020
12:58 AM
12
12
58
AM
PDT
Ten Comandments?
I am the Lord thy God
Says who? Sounds pretty tyrannical to me. Might makes right? How is that objectively moral?
Thou shalt have no other gods before me
Why not? Freedom of religion anyone? Still don't see any rationale that makes this objective in the slightest.
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image
Again, why not? No rationale given, No reason to assume it's objective. Freedom of expression anyone?
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain
See above.
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy
I'm all for public holidays but how is thatobjectively moral? No explanation again. Just what do you mean by "objectively moral", anyway?Seversky
March 17, 2020
March
03
Mar
17
17
2020
08:06 PM
8
08
06
PM
PDT
But ET and TF have no need to worry. In the land of brain hungry zombies they would be the fittest non-infected humans on the planet.Ed George
March 17, 2020
March
03
Mar
17
17
2020
08:03 PM
8
08
03
PM
PDT
No need for thanks. It was a purely Darwinian act. With brain as big as mine, zombies would be lining up to get at me. :)Ed George
March 17, 2020
March
03
Mar
17
17
2020
08:01 PM
8
08
01
PM
PDT
Our profound thanks to Ed George for his sterling work in fending off the zombie apocalypse.Seversky
March 17, 2020
March
03
Mar
17
17
2020
07:52 PM
7
07
52
PM
PDT
KF
PS: EG, you forget a basic fact. Mass shootings, bombings, wars etc that do not happen generally don’t make the headlines.
You got me there. :) Prayer must work because I have been praying that COVID-19 doesn’t result in a zombie apocalypse and, we are still zombie free.Ed George
March 17, 2020
March
03
Mar
17
17
2020
06:17 PM
6
06
17
PM
PDT
@49 ET:
Subjective morals were contrived from objective morals. Where can the objective morals be found? Start with the 10 Commandments.
Hitting the nail on the head.Truthfreedom
March 17, 2020
March
03
Mar
17
17
2020
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT
@47 Kairosfocus
Notice, the subject switch once 13 was on the table, to other lines of attack? It seems the issue is to attack, not to address issues on the merits.
Kairosfocus, you mentioned the forbidden words:
humbling ourselves...
Truthfreedom
March 17, 2020
March
03
Mar
17
17
2020
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT
Subjective morals were contrived from objective morals. Where can the objective morals be found? Start with the 10 Commandments.ET
March 17, 2020
March
03
Mar
17
17
2020
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT
TF, 32. Thanks. Notice, the subject switch once 13 was on the table, to other lines of attack? It seems the issue is to attack, not to address issues on the merits. KFkairosfocus
March 17, 2020
March
03
Mar
17
17
2020
03:25 AM
3
03
25
AM
PDT
JT, a pandemic that hits global production and distribution (or, is perceived to do so) will create uncertainty and even panic over the future. If what is happening with China is right, they have hit the logistic curve cap, with a sharp fall in new cases. That would naturally lead to a rebound in financial markets. Especially, if Italy, Europe and the US begin to get ahead of the virus curve like that. KF PS: I cannot but notice a falloff in comments on prayer after my remarks at 13 above.kairosfocus
March 17, 2020
March
03
Mar
17
17
2020
03:22 AM
3
03
22
AM
PDT
EG, notice, further, what you so artfully glided over: "Why would objective even have any significance, apart from duties to truth, prudence and right reason?" Answer that soundly and the issue will be plain. KFkairosfocus
March 17, 2020
March
03
Mar
17
17
2020
01:20 AM
1
01
20
AM
PDT
PS: Do you not see how your own arguments inescapably pivot on first duties of reason, if they are to have any persuasive traction? Would you try to persuade a PC, or simply reprogram it (with GIGO lurking)? Now, think about the consequences that would follow if we were to treat one another like that as the universal pattern of behaviour: ruinous chaos. The first duties of reason mark requisites of a coherent society, a clue that they are of moral character, are inescapable and are true.kairosfocus
March 17, 2020
March
03
Mar
17
17
2020
01:18 AM
1
01
18
AM
PDT
JVL, if it is objectively true that 2 + 3 = 5, where are these entities to be found? Where can we examine w, the order type of the natural numbers? In other words many objective truths are about abstracta and we recognise them per reasoning on good axioms and premises, or we note the pattern -- another abstractum -- in experiences or observations. A classic is the proof that the diagonal of a square is incommensurate with its sides. Similarly, that the angle on the circumference of a circle is half the angle at the centre standing on the same arc. Another, is that the number of primes is transfinite. And many more cases. KFkairosfocus
March 17, 2020
March
03
Mar
17
17
2020
01:10 AM
1
01
10
AM
PDT
TF: We are all subjects and have subjective experiences as part of our consciousness. That subjectivity does not change the manifest fact that some objects of our experience are not merely matters of our particular consciousness, tastes, conditioning etc but carry warranted independent character. That is, they are objective. Classically, that 2 + 2 = 4 is not subject to the Party's view or whether one may or may not love Big Brother. Going further, simply inspect the structure of and appeals in your own arguments. As just noted to EG, they depend, inescapably, on our knowing and adhering to first duties of reason. That is a strong clue as to their objective character. Absent those duties -- to truth, prudence [so, warrant], right reason, sound conscience [a built-in compass pointing to duty], fairness & justice etc -- the whole structure of your arguments collapses. For example, what is objectively true is that which for credible and adequate cause is well warranted as true. That directly involves duties to truth, prudence and right reason. Your unresponsiveness to the blatant facts manifest from your own arguments does not change them. All it shows instead, is the impact of generations of indoctrination in relativism. Where, for instance, "tolerance" [in the warped form projected] is imposed as a claimed duty of reason. Yes, it is a duty to responsibly respect others under fairness and justice, but that has limits due to reciprocity -- the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities. To give a yardstick case, it is self-evidently true that it is wrong, unjust, evil, wicked to kidnap, bind, gag, sexually assault and murder a child for one's sick pleasure. Like unto this, were we to encounter this in progress, it would be our duty to intervene to rescue the victim. This case of course pivots on and illustrates several of the relevant duties. And indeed, the claim that moral truth claims are inherently subjective similar to response to a steak on the fire, is a truth claim regarding matters of morality. It is in fact a claimed moral truth, but it is incorrect. Recall, truth accurately describes relevant reality. Duty to truth implies that we are to be accurate to reality. It is no mere coincidence, that people who are sufficiently out of contact with reality are regarded as mentally ill. For cause. KFkairosfocus
March 17, 2020
March
03
Mar
17
17
2020
01:01 AM
1
01
01
AM
PDT
EG, false, acting with disregard to truth. For cause, I have repeatedly corrected your errors, yes. That is not ignoring. Meanwhile, you have again done the Wilsonian sidestep: your arguments inescapably rely on our knowing and responding to the first duties of reason to have persuasive effect, but because of the worldview level implications of such a built in governing law of our nature, you refuse to acknowledge what is actually blatant. It would be amusing, if it were not so sad. KFkairosfocus
March 17, 2020
March
03
Mar
17
17
2020
12:40 AM
12
12
40
AM
PDT
“I like the smell of a well-seared steak. That’s a completely subjective opinion. Nothing objective about that at all. But I use that subjective truth to make my life better, and the lives of my loved ones.” And Hannibal Lecter liked human livers with fava beans, Hitler liked his Jews dead, you like a seared steak. Vividvividbleau
March 16, 2020
March
03
Mar
16
16
2020
10:17 PM
10
10
17
PM
PDT
JVL @27
I’ve been waiting to ask this question for a long time and forgive me if I phrase it badly: If there is an objective morality then where is it?
Well we don’t mean objective in a literal sense. So moral truth is not like a rock, a frog or a drop of dew on the petal of a flower which can be located somewhere in space and time. We mean it’s true for everyone not just you. A few years ago student activists at Claremont Pamona College in California succeeded in shutting down a lecture by Manhattan Institute scholar and author Heather Mac Donald. In a letter to the school’s president they wrote:
The idea that there is a single truth — ‘the Truth’ — is a construct of the Euro-West that is deeply rooted in the Enlightenment, which was a movement that also described Black and Brown people as both subhuman and impervious to pain,” the students’ letter stated, according to The Claremont Independent. “This construction is a myth and white supremacy, imperialism, colonization, capitalism, and the United States of America are all of its progeny.”
The following article gives several more long excerpts from the letter: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markmeckler/2017/04/letter-shows-exactly-campus-radicals-think-free-speech/ Libertarian writer, Kat Timf observes that…
“Once you start trying to argue that it’s bad to encourage people to seek the truth, you have officially reached peak idiot. For one thing, admitting that you find valuing the truth to be offensive hardly helps your case when you’re literally trying to convince others that something is true.”
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446862/pomona-students-truth-myth-and-white-supremacy Indeed, you can’t begin to make a moral argument unless it is based on moral TRUTH and that it is true that morality is really grounded in interpersonal moral obligation. It appears the Pomona students reject moral truth but still believe in some kind of interpersonal moral obligation. That is either hypocritical or absurd. Their beliefs and opinions are clearly based on passion not reason. When such idiotic thinking begins to spread through a democratic society it’s putting that society at risk. It will first lead to anarchy and then end up with tyranny or totalitarianism. My position can be stated very succinctly. For example, some time ago on another thread I wrote:
Our regular interlocutors are motivated by either ignorance, delusion or dishonesty. There are no other choices. Whichever it is, there is no evidence that they are here to engage in honest debate or dialogue. To enter into an honest debate one must be able to give honest arguments. An honest argument begins with premises which are, in some sense, either self-evidently true (as in mathematics,) probably true or at the very least plausibly true. In other words, your argument is a waste of everyone’s time unless there really is something or some things which are really true. That begins with the idea of truth itself. Notice the absurdity of the argument the Pomona students are making (see #10 above.) They are arguing that there is no “truth — ‘the Truth’ — “. But that is self-refuting, because their claim, there is no truth, is a truth claim-- a universal truth claim. You can’t even begin to talk rationally about something like universal human rights (as they are trying to do) until you recognize there are moral truths that are universal. Indeed, the idea of truth itself is universal-- it must be. Please notice, the implications this has for atheism. If atheistic materialism/naturalism is “true”* [*something a subjectivist can’t rationally argue] then is does not provide any grounding for human rights. So our atheist interlocutors do not, indeed cannot, support human rights. And it does not matter whether they believe that or not, they cannot rationally argue otherwise. (emphasis added.)
Truth and honesty, which requires the idea of objective truth, cannot be rationally defended or demanded by moral subjectivists. Incredibly they don’t seem to comprehend this. Once again we have an example of our regular interlocutors doing what they do best: obfuscating and obstructing, and once again, unfortunately, people on the ID side foolishly pander to it and enable it. To enter into an honest debate one must be able to ask honest questions or present honest arguments. An honest argument begins with premises which are, in some sense, either self-evidently true (as in mathematics,) probably true or at the very least plausibly true. In other words, your argument is a waste of everyone’s time unless there really is something or some things which are really true. That begins with the idea of truth itself.john_a_designer
March 16, 2020
March
03
Mar
16
16
2020
10:09 PM
10
10
09
PM
PDT
Well, here is a man with his own perspective on 'morals'. He wanted to provide shelter to his daughter, and well, he did.
Austrian man who kept his own daughter prisoner in a warren of soundproofed rooms beneath his home and repeatedly r***d her is reportedly close to death. Morals Are Subjective
If the daughter feels any sadness ('spandrel'?), she will surely find some comfort reading these words:
... life has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA…life has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference. Richard Dawkins
J. Fritzl really tried his best to fullfil such a 'purpose' (DNA and all that).Truthfreedom
March 16, 2020
March
03
Mar
16
16
2020
08:42 PM
8
08
42
PM
PDT
Jim Thibodeau: I like the smell of a well-seared steak. That’s a completely subjective opinion. Nothing objective about that at all. But I use that subjective truth to make my life better, and the lives of my loved ones. The Cartel bosses could say the same thing for why they feel justified in selling cocaine and heroin to Americans.mike1962
March 16, 2020
March
03
Mar
16
16
2020
08:21 PM
8
08
21
PM
PDT
KF
EG, and why should we pay a red cent’s worth of attention to facts and evidence that are inconvenient? Or to the arguments you give in answer? Or acknowledge that you may have a valid point?
Why start now? You have ignored everything I have said so far in favour of rhetorical talking points.Ed George
March 16, 2020
March
03
Mar
16
16
2020
08:06 PM
8
08
06
PM
PDT
@JVL the “objective” morality is exactly what the person making the claim tells you it is. Never mind that all the other people claiming objective morality tell you different things, they’re all wrong. :-DJim Thibodeau
March 16, 2020
March
03
Mar
16
16
2020
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT
I like the smell of a well-seared steak. That’s a completely subjective opinion. Nothing objective about that at all. But I use that subjective truth to make my life better, and the lives of my loved ones. If somebody started obsessively saying how can you like steak! there’s nothing objective about liking steak! why do you like steak at all! why don’t you just give up on liking steak? I would advise them to stop wasting their life attacking others and do something productive.Jim Thibodeau
March 16, 2020
March
03
Mar
16
16
2020
07:28 PM
7
07
28
PM
PDT
EG, and why should we pay a red cent's worth of attention to facts and evidence that are inconvenient? Or to the arguments you give in answer? Or acknowledge that you may have a valid point? Why would objective even have any significance, apart from duties to truth, prudence and right reason? KFkairosfocus
March 16, 2020
March
03
Mar
16
16
2020
07:28 PM
7
07
28
PM
PDT
@ Kairosfocus: Excellent post #13.Truthfreedom
March 16, 2020
March
03
Mar
16
16
2020
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply