Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

On Moral Progress In A Materialist World

Categories
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

A commenter in my last post gave a very nice summary of the current state of thinking about moral progress among matrialists.  Obviously, by definition, materialists cannot point to a transcendent moral code by which to measure moral progress.  Indeed, it is difficult for them to account for moral progress at all because if materialism is correct, the “is” in a society defines the “ought.”  The commenter took a stab at it nevertheless and came up with this: 

In terms of progress: I would say that progress is measured by the increase or decrease of the sphere of human recognition. We today recognize the humanity of African-Americans — a recognition that was denied to their ancestors. It is the contrast between the present and the past, not between the present and an imagined future, that indicates whether or not progress has occurred.  Although such recognition still has some ways to go, as measures go, it’s not a bad one.

In response I would like to pose two questions:

1.  On what basis do you say that the recognition of the humanity of African-Americans is “progress” unless you have held up the previous nonrecognition and the present recognition to a code and deterermined the former was bad (i.e., did not meet the code) and the latter is good (i.e., does meet the code)?  In other words, when you say we have “progressed” it is just another way of saying that the previous state of affairs was bad and the present state of affairs is good.  But how can you know this unless there is a code that transcends time and place by which both states of affairs can be measured.  Certainly to say that things were previously one way and now they are another is not the same as saying there has been progress.  Change is not the same as progress. 

 2.  Increasingly in our society pornography is viewed as an affirmatively good thing.  Perhaps that is even the majority view today, so let us assume for the sake of argument that the majority of people in America think pornography is a good thing.  Does the fact that the majority of people believe pornography is a good thing in fact make the exploitation and objectification of women for the sexual gratification of men good?  Would you say that there has been moral progress because now our society recognizes that the exploitation and objectification of women for the sexual gratification of men is good wheras before we believed that was bad?

Comments
Borne, you are missing my point in your [201]. Trinity: Your analogy to of my body/soul/spirit to the trinity is not apt. My body is not a separate and distinct person from my soul and spirit; my soul is not a separate and distinct person from my body and soul; and my spirit is not a separate and distinct person from my body and soul in the same way that each of the three persons of the Trinity are separate and distinct persons. To suggest that you can understand the Trinity is human terms is utter nonsense. It is a great mystery and as Christians we must approach it with humility as well as reverence. Immanent/Transcendent: Can a painter become part of his painting? I don’t see how, but it is clear that if the universe is considered to be God’s painting, he became part of it. This simply cannot be accounted for in human terms. It is another great mystery. Free Will: If you are a hyper-Calvinist who believes God created some people for the purpose of damning them, I suppose you can get away with not believing in free will. I think the tenor of the Bible as a whole, including the numerous exhortations to good and eschew evil (which exhortations would be useless, indeed cruel, if there were no choice in the matter) does not teach this. Can God make 1 plus 1 equal 6.7 you ask. I don’t see how. On the other hand, I was not there when He created the heavens and the earth and all the morning stars sang and the angels shouted for joy. Translation: I do not presume to know what God can and cannot do to accomplish His purposes.BarryA
November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PST
---getawitness: "StephenB, that’s a pretty good riff, actually. Touché." In spite of it all, your sense of humor always comes through. That is why you are so resilient and probably always will be.StephenB
November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PST
getawitness: "StephenB [205], I have no problem with saying that the Bible talks about design in nature all the time. In fact, I have no problem saying that design is all around us! But I’m not sure how this applies to science." Well, you're right, it doesn't apply to science. But it does apply to Christian/Darwinists who say that their Christianity (design in nature) is compatible with their science (no design in nature).StephenB
November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PST
StephenB, that's a pretty good riff, actually. Touché.getawitness
November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PST
---getawitness: " I think, by the way, that you don’t understand deconstruction. I’m not a deconstructionist myself, but deconstructionsts and I would agree both that all texts are subject to interpretation and that deconstruction is not aobut “revis[ing a text] according to the meaning a reader wishes to impose on it.” Wait a minute! Aren't you imposing your objectivist rationality on me. My understanding of deconstruction is different than yours. Deconstruction does not, by definition, require revision, but is open to it. But even if that was not the case, your subjectivism will not allow you to hold me accountable to an objective definition. The next thing you know you will be appealing to the law of non-contradiction. We will make a logician out of you yet.StephenB
November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PST
StephenB [205], I have no problem with saying that the Bible talks about design in nature all the time. In fact, I have no problem saying that design is all around us! But I'm not sure how this applies to science. I think, by the way, that you don't understand deconstruction. I'm not a deconstructionist myself, but deconstructionsts and I would agree both that all texts are subject to interpretation and that deconstruction is not aobut "revis[ing a text] according to the meaning a reader wishes to impose on it."getawitness
November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PST
StephenB [203], I'm not sure how I'd classify myself, or whether I want to. I think ID reasonably fits with what was at one time the socially dominant definition of science. It seems clear that ID does not, however, fit with current dominant models of what counts as science. Now, there are a number of different ways to specify what science is. One is to say "science is as science does," that is, what science accepts as science is science -- which would make acceptance into the community the pudding that provides the proof. Another has to do with various behaviors such as those associated with the Mertonian norms. Another has to do with definitions of the scientific method (which currently seem to exclude references to non-natural causes). I think everybody agrees that ID is not science in terms of embodying most of the current socially dominant standards. (That's an implied message in No Free Lunch). What's at stake is whether those standards are going to change -- or, since I think they change all the time, whether they're going to return to some older definitions. I frankly don't know. I think if ID promoters want to get one kind of definition changed -- say, the definition that excludes reference to non-material causes -- they would be best served by working within the other definitions (say, the Mertonian norms of universalism, communitarianism, disinterestedness, and organized skepticism). Frankly, I'd like to see them try. That's what makes the story I've come across in the other thread so disturbing, since it suggests a number of violations of those Mertonian norms and thus a black mark on ID's credibility. If what I have heard is true.getawitness
November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PST
getawitness: As I pointed out to SR, there is no dispute about the fact that the Bible teaches that there is design in nature. It is not historically contingent, nor is it subject to anyone's interpretation or perspective. The only alternative is to deconstruct the text and revise it according to the meaning a reader wishes to impose on it. You are not one of those deconstructionits are you?StephenB
November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PST
Stanton Rockwell: Sorry, post #202 was for you. I forgot to put in your quote, "Of course I believe that there is design in nature, and that God is the ultimate source of it, and that the Bible concurs in that belief. Again, do you have a point?"StephenB
November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PST
getawitness: Perhaps I took too much for granted. I assumed that you were a Darwinist, and, by extension, agreed with the Darwinist community that ID is not science. So are you a design/neoDarwinist; non-design/Darwinist or what? Is it possible to be a design/Darwinist?StephenB
November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PST
Fair enough. Yes, my point is that, on this matter at least, there is no problem of interpretation, that the Bible clearly teaches that there is design in nature. Therefore, your point about my "dictating" to others about "true Christianity is irrelevant. I wasn't dictating anything; I was simply alluding to what we now both agree to be a fact. It required a great deal of effort to get you to admit that it was indeed a fact. So, you ask, why I am fussing about all this? Because I had been arguing that one cannot reconcile Christianity with Darwinism. Christianity teaches that design is evident; Darwinism teaches that design is an illusion. Some on this blog have tried to argue that the two world views can be reconciled, I am showing that this is a false assertion. Jumping right in the middle of this dialogue, you made a comment that did not take into account the overall context of what was being discussed. I know that this subject matter is not spot on to the theme of the thread, but I was offering it as an example of how one can use logic to prove a point. getawitness had been suggesting in other contexts that I was using "objectivist rationality" I was trying to show that I was just using logic. This was my example of an inescapable conclusion that must be reached given the evidence. The subject matter is important, though. Because many so called Christian/Darwinists (Ken Miller, for example) insist that they are not ideologues when rule out design in nature and, under the circumstances, claim that ID cannot be real science. As proof of their "disinterested" stance, they point out that they are "devout Christians." Well, if they are so devout, why do they not accept the obvious teaching in THEIR Bible and admit that there is indeed design in nature? If they don't really believe their Bible, that's fine. But if they don't believe what their faith teaches, then why do they keep alluding to it as if they did? Either they are irrational, uninformed, or insincere. Is there a fourth alternative?StephenB
November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PST
BarryA: "Well, if God says He is ONE GOD in the Shema, is it a contradiction for him to say that He exists in three persons?" This is an ages old question that has been answered adequately over & over again. Of course it isn't a contradiction! You are 3 parts in entity yourself - body soul spirit - which one is the ONE you? "If God is immanent in his creation how can he also be transcendant over his creation?" Why should he not be since transcendence itself implies the possibility of both. "God says He has absolute (not probablistic but absolute) foreknowledge that I will do X. Do I have a choice about whether to do X? God says I do. How can that be?" Where does God say this? "Can singularity both exist and not exist at the same time?" Can God? The question is irrelevant. "Can transendance both exist and not exist at the same time?" Same answer. "Can free will both exist and not exist at the same time?" Not unless you have 2 differing definitions of free will - define your terms of reference. I see your questions as being precisely in the category Lewis describes i.e. confusions as to modes of existence that you see as having some vital contradictory elemet but that in fact do not. You're basically repeating, in slightly more sophisticated terms, the question- "Is yellow square or round?" So again - "Probably half the questions we ask - half our great theological and metaphysical problems - are like that.” I don't see this as being difficult. "All I’m saying (and I think all getawitness is saying) is God is too big to put in the box of our categories." Certainly! But God cannot contradict himself. And we are referencing the God of Christianity the scriptures say as much. That is, and indeed must be, a natural law of all beings. Would you say something like, "God could make 1+1=6.7"? Based upon your answers it seems like you would go that far. I certainly hope not. Whatever... "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin"?Borne
November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PST
StephenB [187], you may be right theologically, but you are wrong historically. In fact, any social identity is going to be diverse. Christians can't even agree on what the Bible is. Anywyay, I'm not going to argue theology with you. As for your other point, I don't think I've argued here that ID is not science. So, I'm not sure what you're responding to. As a general principle, I do think that definitions of science change over time and for different communities. In fact, I view definitions as pragmatic rather than propositional: I tend to transform (implicitly or explicitly) phrases of the form A is really B into the form It's useful to think of A as B under circumstances C. Sorry: that's probably an overlong answer.getawitness
November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PST
StephenB, I'm not sure why you cut off the part where I said, "...as the Bible says." Do you have a point? The Bible is an inanimate object and as such doesn't "teach" anything. People read the Bible and try to teach others what they've learned from that reading. People are fallible, and your exegesis may (and most likely does) differ from mine. I'm not prepared to promote you, or Luther, or Augustine, or Calvin, or any other fallible human to the position of Final Arbiter in Biblical interpretation. Of course I believe that there is design in nature, and that God is the ultimate source of it, and that the Bible concurs in that belief. Again, do you have a point?Stanton Rockwell
November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PST
Stanton Rockwell, "I’m sorry for not realizing that you needed a literal answer. I am a Christian, and as such I believe that God created the heavens and the earth, and their past and present In your own words, you have a duty to discern and understand. It doesn't get any more basic than this. Do you believe that the Bible teaches that there is design in nature?StephenB
November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PST
StephenB, I'm sorry for not realizing that you needed a literal answer. I am a Christian, and as such I believe that God created the heavens and the earth, and their past and present occupants, as the Bible says.Stanton Rockwell
November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PST
ellazimm -- I’m not saying any culture has condoned immoral behaviour Individuals regardless of culture have done immoral things, but cultures certainly can and have condoned immoral behavior. And I think it should be obvious that immoral behavior would be greater in a culture that condones it. Hence, culture matters.tribune7
November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PST
Stanton Rockwell: "What I believe the Bible says about design in nature doesn’t absolve me from attempting to prove it in scientific terms, if I hope to see ID accepted as science (and I do)." In other words, you will not give me a straight answer to a straight question. I ask you again: Do you believe that the Bible teaches that there is design in nature.StephenB
November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PST
Since, in your words, you “have a duty to make a rigorous and honest attempt to discern and understand what God has said,” I ask you plainly: In your honest judgment, do you believe that the Bible teaches that there is design in nature?
What I believe the Bible says about design in nature doesn't absolve me from attempting to prove it in scientific terms, if I hope to see ID accepted as science (and I do).Stanton Rockwell
November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PST
StephenB said,
Why can’t I say I am a Darwinist, but I want to do a little ID research.
You can, or conversely, you can say you are an ID adherent and do a little Darwinist research. Just do some research, and let the results speak for themselves.Stanton Rockwell
November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PST
Stanton Rockwell: Since, in your words, you "have a duty to make a rigorous and honest attempt to discern and understand what God has said," I ask you plainly: In your honest judgment, do you believe that the Bible teaches that there is design in nature?StephenB
November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PST
Stanton Rockwell and getawitness: Well, if you think that the Bible is unclear on design in nature, then by all means believe anything you want to believe and be a Christian. Let's go ahead and say even when the meaning is obvious and not open to interpretation, that you can just say words mean anything you want them to mean. By the way, since we are dispensing with all definitions, why can't we spread the wealth around a little bit. If you can be a non-Design Christian (an oxymoron if there ever was one) why can't I be a design Darwinist. Why can't I say I am a Darwinist, but I want to do a little ID research.StephenB
November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PST
StephenB said
Sorry, but you are wrong, in fact. To not believe the word of God is to not be a Christian. You are playing with words to avoid the obvious. But let’s put that aside for the moment (only for the moment).
I speak only for myself, but I'm not about to allow a guy commenting on a blog to dictate to me what constitutes "true" Christianity. Martin Luther, in an angry letter to the Pope, stated unequivocally that individuals must be free to interpret scripture for themselves. As a Christian, I have a duty to make a rigorous and honest attempt to discern and understand what God has said, and I suspect that my own interpretation might be very different from yours.Stanton Rockwell
November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PST
A voice from the peanut gallery says: It may be that being a Christian requires that one believe in "the word of God", but that still leaves wide open the question as to what "the word of God" is and who decides what counts. If one considers the beginning of John, it seems that "the word of God" is the person of Jesus Christ. So one who believes in Jesus -- that he was the Christ, conquered death, etc. -- is someone who believes in the word of God. For those interested in the history of Christian theology, I cannot recommend highly enough one of the few books I've read on the topic: The Domestication of Transcendence by William Placher.Carl Sachs
November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PST
Savoring the wisdom emergent in this thread Isaiah 55:8 comes to mind—“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.” The laws of the Torah are for Israel, and until Israel is found living in the land keeping those laws we should not expect to see the fulfillment of Isaiah 2:3—“And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.” Nevertheless the Hebrew Scriptures influenced the development of Western Civilization—perhaps most profoundly in the rise of the United States—at least that’s the premise in David Gelernter’s Americanism: The Fourth Great Western Religion (Doubleday, 2007). No one argues that any nation has or should instantiate the Torah completely and thus replace Israel. But that does not mean we cannot savor its wisdom. Joseph found himself in a prison in Egypt (Genesis 39:20f.), yet there was no provision for prison revealed at Sinai. Rather there is restitution, cities of refuge, and indentured servitude of limited duration which, by the way, no one says we should adopt. But spend some time investigating the conditions in America’s prisons where various misfits and low IQs are thrown together with incorrigibles and … and then considering the course a Torah rejecting Western Civilization took in the 20th century the Torah doesn’t look so bad after all. To the degree we have reverenced the biblical text our civilization has been moderated, and to the degree we have spurned it horrors have been unleashed upon the world.Rude
November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PST
Sorry, but you are wrong, in fact. To not believe the word of God is to not be a Christian. You are playing with words to avoid the obvious. But let's put that aside for the moment (only for the moment). If you are going to be that open minded about what it means to be a Christian, why can't you be that open minded about what it means to be a scientist. After all, ID insists that it is science; your says it is not. Are you now ready to admit that you are just imposing your brand of "objectivist" rationality on the subject?StephenB
November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PST
StephenB, "Either God’s word must be compromised, or else Darwinist must be disavowed. A Christian can’t embrace Darwin and remain true to the Gospel." For this to be true, there would have to be agreement on what it means to be a Christian and in particular on the role of scripture for the Christian. Christianity is (obviously) historically much more diverse than this. So while it may be true that a person can't embrace Darwin and be your kind of Christian, a historical approach to the subject will recognize the diversity of views held by those who call themselves Christians. I actually think "Darwinism," which is a term I don't usually use, is also more divese than this. And I'd also point to Alan MacNeill's points about God being in control of perceived randomness. But anyway: the argument fails for reasons that have little to do with relativism.getawitness
November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
04:21 AM
4
04
21
AM
PST
GAW Re 181:
when a relativist refuses to answer a question on the terms of the objectivist, that refusal is not necessarily a refusal of rationality, but only a refusal of a certain account of rationality as the objectivist understands it — which is precisely the point at issue
Not at all. So soon as the relativist affirms something to be or not to be, s/he directly entails that truth is that which says of what is, that it is, and of what is not, that it is not. And, that falsity fails at this bar. For instance, observe in the above statement: when a relativist refuses to answer a question . . . Does this not plainly affirm to be so, a certain frequently encountered state of affairs in the cosmos that is accessible to reasonable tests of warrant, and that we may thus properly infer is so or is not so? That is, the very opening statement presumes that truth is, in the classical sense just described. In short, what is really happening here is, unfortunately a turnabout accusation rhetorical fallacy/tactic, in the guise of a position on truth. [If inadvertent, it is a mere error in reasoning; if willful, it is a tactic.] Putting it more bluntly: WHEN IT IS NOT CONVENIENT TO ANSWER, a relativist will in certain cases refuse to answer to a question on the objective state of affairs in the cosmos, projecting to the objectivist interlocutor, the accusation that s/he is imposing a particular "objectivist" account of truth or warrant or rationality. But, to make even that accusation, the relativist is inherently assuming precisely the same account of truth or warrant or rationality. In short we see here selective hyper-skepticism, which as an intellectual double-standard, is always self-referentially incoherent. A more profitable approach would be to follow Josiah Royce, and examine the claim, error exists. To try to deny this is to instantiate it, so it is undenaiably true -- i.e we see here a well-warranted case of truth. So for good reason, we see that at least one instance of truth exists, so truth exists. [And IMHCO, we may meet the Truth Himself, as I and millions of others have . . . . we are not locked up to despair!] Of course, we may be mistaken about particular truth claims, but that is not an excuse for resorting to relativistic rhetorical errors or games [however dressed up], but to being humble but persistent in the path of warrant so that we can be reasonably but open-mindedly confident in the truth claims we affirm. GEM of TKI PS: I argue here that the redemptive, monotheistic Trinitarian concept of God is most definitely not incoherent but in fact answers to one of the most intractable problems in all of philosophy: the question of the one and the many in our cosmos; including the problem of morality.kairosfocus
November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
02:23 AM
2
02
23
AM
PST
-----getawitness, You wrote, "To crudely summarize her claim, when a relativist refuses to answer a question on the terms of the objectivist, that refusal is not necessarily a refusal of rationality, but only a refusal of a certain account of rationality as the objectivist understands it — which is precisely the point at issue. Anyway, it’s a much better book than that suggests. I’m not trying to palm off the consequences of our disagreement onto some authority, though I can anticipate being accused of that. I’m just saying that playing out that disagreement probably requires a much longer forum than we have here — and as we’ve already seen, playing out disagreements extensively runs the risk of seeming evasive or squirrelly." Let's put the much-abused term "Theistic Evolution to the test. Let's find out whether I am being truly rational or, as you say, merely acting as if I have a "lock on rationality." Theistic evolution once referred to a process in which God directed an evolutionary process in some way. If nothing else, he planted the seeds of development, even if he did not intervene to direct the process. There was some semblance of purpose and design. There was no conflict between Christianity and this brand of evolution, because everyone understood that God had something in mind. Things were unfolding “according to his plan.” Today, a different group has co-opted that term. Many, for example claim to be Theistic evolutionists, but they don’t mean the same thing at all. When this new group used the term, they refer to a synthesis of neo-Darwinism and Christianity. Well, this new formula rules a few things out. To be a true Darwinist, a Christian must hold that the evolutionary process was completely random and undirected. That, of course, rules out not only a directed process; it also rules out a “programmed process.” God can neither plant the seed nor supervise the process. Further, it cannot unfold according to his “plan,” because the process cannot be purposeful. Further, it rules out the prospect of design in nature. Thus, to be a Christian Darwinist is to believe 1) God revealed himself in scripture and 2) God hid himself in nature. But wait. According to the Christian scriptures, God revealed himself in nature. That means that to be a Christian is to believe that God revealed himself both in the Bible and in nature. It also means that design is not only detectable, it is, as it says in Scripture, “evident.” Clearly, then, something has to give. Either God’s word must be compromised, or else Darwinist must be disavowed. A Christian can’t embrace Darwin and remain true to the Gospel. But Christian Darwinists call themselves theistic evolutionists knowing that most observers will interpret that to mean guided evolution even though they subscribe to an unguided evolution. How sweet it is to have both worlds. To fellow believers they call on God; to their professional peers they call on Darwin. Further, there can be no doubt that their real sympathies lie with Darwin. When it comes time to debate, they always side with Darwinists and against intelligent design. Truly, they want a quiet God and a loud Darwin. I have made a logical case that Darwinism is not consistent with Christianity and that those who try to integrate the two are being disingenuous. Am I, as you put it, merely giving an “objectivists account of rationality?” I say I am giving rationality and all this talk about objectivist rationality if a lot of nonsense. If I am wrong, how can I be refuted without violating the rule of reason?StephenB
November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
11:51 PM
11
11
51
PM
PST
All: It seems the thread has come down to basics. What is a definition? Can A be true and false at the same time, and in the same sense of A? When we fell "unfaired" and quarrel, are we doing nothing more than the Gazelle bleating in the teeth of the hungry lion? And more. We need to think soberly about where the evolutionary materialism anchored secularist responses above are pointing. (In short, to the incoherence of evolutionary materialism as it is unable to ground the reliability of our minds and thus has no objective basis for morals.) I note to Bob [re 162] that definition by key example in 150 is prior to definition by statements or by taxonomy. For, we must test to see that the relevant statements or taxonomic procedures refer accurately, and reliably! So, if you cannot recognise the holocaust as an instance of evil, that is sobering. And, simple recognition is all that is required for the syllogisms I excerpted in 150 above to work, thank you. That is if one case of evil is recognisable, evil exists. The consequences follow. Further to this, kindly note again what I said [note that I gave no citation, I simply highlighted a point]:
definitions come in at least two main flavours, and definition by apt concrete example and family resemblance thereto is a proper means of definition — and one that is actually prior to definition by genus and differentia or precising statement. For, our recognition of the reliability of such a precising statement or of progressive distinction within a broader set depend on our being able to recognise whether or not a particular instance the [stated or taxonomic] definition in-/ex-cludes is properly ruled in or out.
For telling instance, there is no general stated definition of life that includes all cases of life and excludes all cases of non-life. But we can have a science of biology based on recognising instances of life and family resemblance thereto. On the question "is slavery wrong," this is a case in point: what do we mean by slavery? In the relevant cultural senses, owing money on a house is in the ANE type setting that is the world of reference for the OT, a form of/ tantamount to "slavery." So is indentured servitude [which is what the OT laws regulating and ameliorating -- as opposed to instituting -- by and large set out to manage]. Also, in the ancient world, surrendering liberty was often a desperate means of survival and protection by coming into a wealthy person's household, in the teeth of the very real prospect of starvation. Further to this, as say Mal 2:16 states about Divorce [and Jesus' remarks in Matt 19 etc], there is a principle in the OT law, that God will regulate and ameliorate [then reform -- cf NT teachings on promoting manumission and avoiding enslavement] what is already existing in the context of the hardness of men's hearts as opposed to what is the truly good. This principle plainly extends to slavery -- read Paul's letter to Philemon. So, we need to look very closely at terms and contexts before answering such a question in light of our own cultural memories of new world plantation chattel slavery. For, under certain circumstances, certain forms of slavery may have been -- and God forbid (I am a descendant of slaves and indentured servants!), may yet be -- the lesser of evils. But, let us note: the lesser of evils is an evil, so the basic point still obtains: evil manifestly exists and can be recognised through concrete instances. But, there is no doubt that mass murder of alleged sub-humans by a master race was and remains unequivocally evil, thus, we are right back at the force of the propositions in the syllogisms already excerpted. Nor should we allow side-tracks to become red herrings, pulling us away from its force:
[4] An action can be truly evil only if a transcendent moral code exists. [5] The holocaust was truly evil. [6] Therefore, a transcendent moral code exists.
So now, what worldview best makes sense of a world in which there is an objective moral order? Why? GEM of TKIkairosfocus
November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
07:34 PM
7
07
34
PM
PST
1 2 3 4 5 9

Leave a Reply