Why Do Atheists Deny Objective Morality?

_{Barry Arrington

January 11, 2018

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In a recent exchange in this post William J. Murray said to frequent commenter Bob O’H:

all you (and others) are doing is avoiding the point via wordplay. We all act and expect others to act as if these things are objective and universally binding, the ability to imagine alternate systems notwithstanding.

That is precisely correct, as illustrated by my exchange with goodusername in the same post. First, at comment 12 GUN professed to not even know what the word “right” means:

GUN: “What would it even mean to give a “right” answer to a morality question?”

I decided to test this:

Barry @ 13:

Suppose the following exchange:

GUN: Hey, Barry is is evil to torture an infant for personal pleasure?

Barry: Yes, GUN, it is.

Did I supply a “right” answer to a moral question?

GUN replied at 15: “Such a thing certainly shocks my sense of empathy, and so I would fight to stop such a thing, as would most others. So the answer is right in that sense.”

First GUN insisted he does not even know what “morally right” means. But when confronted with an undeniable self-evident moral truth he had to walk it back and admit he did in fact know what the right answer is. But, as WJM points out, he tried to obscure the obvious point with wordplay. So I called BS on him.

GUN’s antics are just the latest of hundreds I have seen over the years. It is amazing. They know that no sane person can live his life as if what they say were true. Yet they absolutely insist on saying it anyway. Why do they do that? Simple. Because they want to ignore the dictates of morality when it suits them. Atheist Aldous Huxley was very candid about this:

I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves . . . For myself . . . the philosophy of meaningless was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom; we objected to the political and economic system because it was unjust.

Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means: An Inquiry Into the Nature of Ideals and Into the Methods Employed for Their Realization (1937), 272-73

Huxley wanted to reserve the option of sleeping with his neighbor’s wife. So, no objective morality.

Comments

@KF
Where, remember, the linchpin moral issue at stake is the ongoing holocaust of living posterity in the womb at a rate of a million further victims per week on a baseline of 800+ millions since the early 1970’s. From the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks, and when crookedness is made the standard for straightness, absurdity is driving the train over the cliff heedless of warnings. KF
Yes, KF. This is a concrete moral problem. And I'm suggesting that we can make progress in solving it with moral knowledge. Barry wrote....
Suppose a super-being were to come to you this evening and give you a satisfactory guaranty that you could eliminate all cancer in the entire world. All you have to do to achieve that otherwise laudable goal is torture this toddler to death.
Why do you think I'd believe torturing a specific toddler to death would somehow "satisfactory guarantee" that I could eliminate all cancer in the world? Does the toddler possess that knowledge and I have to torture it out of it? Toddlers cannot even conceive of explanatory theories at all, let along an explanatory theory of how to eliminate cancer. Nor would that require me to torture it *to death*, either. Even if a Toddler could somehow conceive of explanatory theories, apparently, the super being isn't that "super" if it thinks there is no way to use rational argument to convince the toddler to reveal the knowledge in question, as opposed to using violence. And if that knowledge is somehow embedded in the toddler, why would we need to use torture to extract it? This super being doesn’t seem all that super. Rather it seems to possess less moral knowledge than I do. Most likely, I'd assume said “super being” is trying to trick me in to doing something I don't want to do: torture a toddler to death. Perhaps it’s not really a super being after all. Or this entire scenario is actually contrived as some kind of test, etc. Either way, I'm not buying it. Or are you suggesting that somehow I, having tortured a toddler to death, would somehow enable the super being to eliminate all cancer in the world on my behalf, or give me super powers? It's unclear how this would work any more than human beings having tortured a man to death thousands of years ago supposedly enabled the super being you worship to save everyone in the entire world, and them some. IOW, when we stop and consider our options, there is good criticism of the idea of a toddler dying in agony somehow resulting in the elimination of all cancer in the entire world. However, I would again say, the only thing that would prevent us from accomplishing something that is not prohibited by the laws of physics is knowing how, which would include eliminating all cancer in the world. So, this is a question of knowledge. And what if someone who already possessed the knowledge of how to do so offered to give it to me in exchange for torturing a specific toddler to death? And, lets say that someone used that knowledge to eliminate cancer in, say, one city in every country of the world to satisfactorily indicated they indeed possessed it. What then? First, I would ask, who would intentionally keep that knowledge from us, if it possessed it? Oh wait, that would be the Christian God, who would have possessed that knowledge eternally. Does God care about toddlers with cancer dying in agony or only if *we* cause one of them to die in agony? No perpetual miracles are needed. Just knowledge. Second there would be some motivation as to why this person would make that particular exchange. Again, I think that argument could be used to convince them to release that knowledge under some other terms. For example, does this person want revenge and has kidnapped someone else's toddler? Do they think vengeance will make them feel better? What about getting investors together and offering to purchase that knowledge for 100 million dollars 200 million? Or, perhaps, they themselves are being coerced into doing something against their will? Can we remove the leverage over them, so they can release the information? Etc. The problem with this example is that it’s missing the actual context that a concrete moral problem would exhibit, in practice, and you assume no knowledge could help us avoid this dilemma. The very idea that it’s possible to convince the person in question that they were mistaken and might prefer some other terms, is to say they could be objectively mistaken about how the world works, in reality. That is they were mistaken about moral knowledge. I don’t claim to know the best way to obtain that person’s goal. But I would suggest that we could present good argument that objectivity show torturing a specific toddler to death isn’t one of them. To quote Popper from “The Open Society and Its Enemies”
As we have seen before (in chapter 5), and now again in our analysis of the uncritical version of rationalism, arguments cannot determine such a fundamental moral decision. But this does not imply that our choice cannot be helped by any kind of argument whatever. On the contrary, whenever we are faced with a moral decision of a more abstract kind, it is most helpful to analyze carefully the consequences which are likely to result from the alternatives between which we have to choose. For only if we can visualize these consequences in a concrete and practical way, do we really know what our decision is about; otherwise we decide blindly. In order to illustrate this point, I quote a passage from Shaw’s Saint Joan. The speaker is the Chaplain: he has stubbornly demanded Joan’s death; but when he sees her at the stake, he breaks down; ‘I meant no harm. I did not know what it would be like .. I did not know what I was doing .. If I had known, I would have torn her from their hands. You don’t know. You haven’t seen: it is so easy to talk when you don’t know. You madden yourself with words .. But when it is brought home to you; when you see the thing you have done: when it is blinding your eyes, stifling your nostrils, tearing your heart, then –then –O God, take away this sight from me!’ (footnote omitted.) There were, of course, other figures in Shaw’s play who knew exactly what they were doing, and yet decided to do it; and who did not regret it afterwards. Some people dislike seeing their fellow men burning at the stake and others do not. This point (which was neglected by many Victorian optimists) is important, for it shows that a rational analysis of the consequences of a decision does not make the decision rational; the consequences do not determine our decision; it is always we who decide. But an analysis of the concrete consequences, and their clear realization in what we call our ‘imagination’, makes the difference between a blind decision and a decision made with open eyes; and since we use our imagination very little (footnote omitted) we only too often decide blindly. This is especially so if we are intoxicated by an oracular philosophy, one of the most powerful means of maddening ourselves with words — to use Shaw’s expression.
Again, I would say that many here use their imagination very little. Now, to your "the linchpin moral issue at stake". The problem of unwanted and unsafe pregnancies? We could develop artificial wombs and ways to transplant a fetus into women who cannot conceive children of their own, etc. Again, we know these things are not prohibited by the laws of physics, so the only thing that would prevent us from achieving them is knowing how. That would be yet even more knowledge that God would have possessed since eternity and apparently doesn’t feel like sharing with us. How would doing so impact the number of abortions that occur, in practice, if there were other options? In the future we will have create new knowledge and it will change the moral landscape dramatically. In fact, it already has, but will do so in the future to a far greater degree. And it will be fallible people that will have made the difference and resulted in far better moral problems to solve. In the mean time, your God stands by idly and watches. How could you worship such a being who withholds this knowledge from us? However, it's not really clear you think this actually is a moral problem to solve in the first place. Do you just lack imagination?critical rationalist_{January 16, 2018
January
01
Jan
16
16
2018
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT}

SB: More or less absolute? How can one thing be more absolute than another? In any case, the relativist, like you, does not think morals are God given. So that is no difference. JS
That you don’t understand the difference between moral relativism and moral subjectivism is your problem, not mine.
But I do understand the difference. That is why I am asking you the questions and you are evading them. SB: Or again, You don’t think that raping or abusing authority is absolutely or objectively wrong, neither does the relativist.
The fact that you don’t understand the difference between absolutely wrong and objectively wrong is your problem, not mine.
So far, the problem is that you are evading my questions. The differences between MS and MR that you claimed are not differences at all. SB: So I return to my question: What kinds of moral acts can the moral relativist accept on the basis of his philosophy that you cannot accept on the basis of your philosophy?
How would I know? I’m not a moral relativist.
Do you need to be a moral relativist to know what a moral relativist is? I am not a moral relativist and I know what moral relativism is.
If you know the difference, why ask the question? You obviously will not accept any answer that differs from how you conceive them.
The point of my questions is to encourage you to think more deeply. When you say that a thing (moral value) "can be more or less absolute," you are using bad logic. It is a nonsensical statement and a problem that needs to be explored. So it is with some of your other statements. When you say you know the difference between moral subjectivism and moral relativism, and at the same time, refuse to discuss moral relativism on the grounds that you don't happen to be one, that is a problem, especially since you sternly criticized KF for not knowing the difference.StephenB_{January 16, 2018
January
01
Jan
16
16
2018
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT}

KF
JS, I note that no-one has claimed that relativism and subjectivism are identical.
Yet all of your criticisms of subjectivism have actually been criticisms of relativism. SB
More or less absolute? How can one thing be more absolute than another? In any case, the relativist, like you, does not think morals are God given. So that is no difference.
That you don’t understand the difference between moral relativism and moral subjectivism is your problem, not mine.
Or again, You don’t think that raping or abusing authority is absolutely or objectively wrong, neither does the relativist.
The fact that you don’t understand the difference between absolutely wrong and objectively wrong is your problem, not mine.
So I return to my question: What kinds of moral acts can the moral relativist accept on the basis of his philosophy that you cannot accept on the basis of your philosophy?
How would I know? I’m not a moral relativist.
Don’t get the impression that I don’t know the difference between the two paradigms. I do. I am just asking a practical question.
If you know the difference, why ask the question? You obviously will not accept any answer that differs from how you conceive them.JSmith_{January 16, 2018
January
01
Jan
16
16
2018
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT}

When I use the phrase "will not accept," I mean will condemn as wrong for everyone in all circumstances.StephenB_{January 16, 2018
January
01
Jan
16
16
2018
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT}

A subjectivist accepts that there are things that are more or less absolute, but that they aren’t god given. And that anyone with unimpaired thinking abilities can figure out for themselves. Not raping and killing your neighbours kid is a simple one. Not raping 12 year olds when you are in a position of authority is another.
More or less absolute? How can one thing be more absolute than another? In any case, the relativist, like you, does not think morals are God given. So that is no difference. Or again, You don't think that raping or abusing authority is absolutely or objectively wrong, neither does the relativist. So I return to my question: What kinds of moral acts can the moral relativist accept on the basis of his philosophy that you cannot accept on the basis of your philosophy? And vice versa? Don't get the impression that I don't know the difference between the two paradigms. I do. I am just asking a practical question.StephenB_{January 16, 2018
January
01
Jan
16
16
2018
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT}

From an earlier thread....
Y seems like X. All of our best arguments against Y not being X seem to be falling. So, for now, we’ll critically take the idea that Y is X on board. All of our best arguments against X are just that. More guesses that we critically take on board, etc. This is what I mean when I say what KF calls basic-beliefs are just beliefs that we currently have no good criticism of. That can change because in no way do I think that we currently possession all good criticisms of, say, consciousness, or any other supposedly basic belief. Given that I’ve made this argument at least a half a dozen times, it’s unclear why you’d assume I think our means of criticism is somehow infallible as well.
I would again point out that no one has yet made a comment that actually contradicts this.. Rather the objection they seem to have some objection based on dictionary definitions. My challenge still stands. By all means, please present a supposedly basic belief that we have a good criticism of, which would be a contradiction. I won't be holding my breath.
My point was and has continues to be: how does a proposition obtain the status of being “already true” before reason has its say? The application of reason, being a form of criticism. How might we infallibly possess a complete list of all the ways a proposition might be false at the time of considering it? What about the creation of genuinely new knowledge in the fields of human biology, neurology and epistemology, etc. that we do not have right now? Nor are we even guaranteed to actual come up with all the possible ways to criticize something at all. It might take years, decades, centuries, millennia or never even come at all. Criticisms failing and continuing to fail as we develop new ones are all we have. Persuasion is “critical evaluation” If you hold some source to be infallible, how did you infallibly identify it among others? How do you infallibly interpret it? How do you infallibly determine when to defer to it? For example, in respect to the Bible (assuming you’ve somehow managed to infallibly identify it) what is metaphor and what is literal? is the Bible a science book? Should we defer to it on matters of mathematics and the number of legs on insects? What about the Quran? It claims to be the verbatim and final revelation of God. So, why haven’t you decided you do not need to defer to it as well?
Appeals to the law of identity are naive as they some how assume we can infallibly identify everything, that we will not run across something we have yet to identify, or the future will somewhat resemble the past. The law of identity is trivially true. Why? Because it is a tautology. So could it help us in practice? From Wikipedia entry on tautology....
The word tautology was used by the ancient Greeks to describe a statement that was asserted to be true merely by virtue of saying the same thing twice, a pejorative meaning that is still used for rhetorical tautologies.
So, from a rhetorical perspective I don't see how repeating one's self helps in practice.
In 1800, Immanuel Kant wrote in his book Logic:
"The identity of concepts in analytical judgments can be either explicit (explicita) or non-explicit (implicita). In the former case analytic propositions are tautological."
Here analytic proposition refers to an analytic truth, a statement in natural language that is true solely because of the terms involved.
Ok, but what is true about the statement that is actually helpful?
In 1884, Gottlob Frege proposed in his Grundlagen that a truth is analytic exactly if it can be derived using logic. But he maintained a distinction between analytic truths (those true based only on the meanings of their terms) and tautologies (statements devoid of content).
How can something "devoid of content" be of help, in practice?
In 1921, in his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, Ludwig Wittgenstein proposed that statements that can be deduced by logical deduction are tautological (empty of meaning) as well as being analytic truths. Henri Poincaré had made similar remarks in Science and Hypothesis in 1905. Although Bertrand Russell at first argued against these remarks by Wittgenstein and Poincaré, claiming that mathematical truths were not only non-tautologous but were synthetic, he later spoke in favor of them in 1918...
Agan, it's unclear how something that is "empty of meaning" can help us in practice. However, words are shortcuts for ideas, and we should be willing to redefine our terms to make progress. So perhaps KF or someone else here can present a definition of the Law of identity that isn't a tautology so we can make progress? My guess is what KF and company are really referring to some sort of essentialism based on Plato's forms, etc. In fact the quote above is from "The Republic", correct? Are you aware that Popper has written entire chapters on Plato and "The Republic" which suggests it is totalitarian? Have you read them?critical rationalist_{January 16, 2018
January
01
Jan
16
16
2018
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT}

GUN, Are you familiar with the philosophy of "Might Makes Right?" It appears that is what you are wittingly or unwittingly espousing - that whatever we think is good is in fact good (in the only way a moral good can be a fact - personal feeling, preference, subjective thoughts, views), and that we have the self-asserted right to enforce those goods on others, have we the power and inclination to do so.William J Murray_{January 16, 2018
January
01
Jan
16
16
2018
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT}

JS, I note that no-one has claimed that relativism and subjectivism are identical. Lewis highlighted that subjectivism makes the relativism become tied to the individual. And there is indeed a long chain of incoherencies in the views your persona has advoicated that have come out in recent weeks here at UD, bland denial will do you no good, nor will the notorious tactic of projecting an accusation such as you just did, nor will the crocodile death roll attempt. You -- whether it is one individual or effectively a collective behind the mask -- now have zero benefit of doubts. KFkairosfocus_{January 16, 2018
January
01
Jan
16
16
2018
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT}

And that anyone with unimpaired thinking abilities can figure out for themselves.
That leaves you out.ET_{January 16, 2018
January
01
Jan
16
16
2018
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT}

SB
What I was getting at was this: What aspect of morality does a moral relativist accept that you do not accept?
A moral relativist is like WJM’s BS about preference of ice cream. A subjectivist accepts that there are things that are more or less absolute, but that they aren’t god given. And that anyone with unimpaired thinking abilities can figure out for themselves. Not raping and killing your neighbours kid is a simple one. Not raping 12 year olds when you are in a position of authority is another.JSmith_{January 16, 2018
January
01
Jan
16
16
2018
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT}

SB
It is most definitely a moral value. Anytime you use the word “should” in an unqualified way, you are asserting a moral value.
You should buy me a beer.JSmith_{January 16, 2018
January
01
Jan
16
16
2018
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT}

I don’t have the time right now to get into all of this, but the big difference between them is that subjectivism does not preclude absolutes (or as close to absolutes as you can get).
What I was getting at was this: What aspect of morality does a moral relativist accept that you do not accept?StephenB_{January 16, 2018
January
01
Jan
16
16
2018
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT}

For the record- Bill Clinton did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Monica Lewinsky. :roll:ET_{January 16, 2018
January
01
Jan
16
16
2018
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT}

JSmith:
For the record, I am not who ET claims I am.
OK Pinocchio. Just be careful going around corners.ET_{January 16, 2018
January
01
Jan
16
16
2018
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT}

SB JS: All moral values should be open to questioning. SB: What about the moral value that you just expressed?
That’s not a moral value. It’s an opinion.
It is most definitely a moral value. Anytime you use the word "should" in an unqualified way, you are asserting a moral value. There is no question about it. I have pointed out the contradictory nature of your statements many times, especially when you say "is" but really mean "seems." But I will adjust my question to address your moving target: Should your *opinion* that "moral values should be open to question"--be open to question?StephenB_{January 16, 2018
January
01
Jan
16
16
2018
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT}

SB
Can you provide me with your definition of moral subjectivism, and moral relativism, and tell me how your views align with each paradigm?
I don’t have the time right now to get into all of this, but the big difference between them is that subjectivism does not preclude absolutes (or as close to absolutes as you can get).JSmith_{January 16, 2018
January
01
Jan
16
16
2018
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT}

Your comment to KF is interesting. It's true that moral subjectivism is not exactly the same thing as moral relativism, but they both have a great deal in common. Can you provide me with your definition of moral subjectivism, and moral relativism, and tell me how your views align with each paradigm?StephenB_{January 16, 2018
January
01
Jan
16
16
2018
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT}

SB
JS: All moral values should be open to questioning. SB: What about the moral value that you just expressed?
That’s not a moral value. It’s an opinion. All opinions are open to questioning. Except, apparently, KF’s. KF
Just in this thread, it is clear that JS is a sock-puppet throwaway identity for a troll of many aliases over the years. That confirmation lends a very different colour to discussions in the thread and in recent weeks.
For the record, I am not who ET claims I am. But you won’t believe that as it would require you to haul ET over the carpet for making unsubstantiated accusations. But regardless, I think that I would like this acartia/spearshake dude.JSmith_{January 16, 2018
January
01
Jan
16
16
2018
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT}

KF
SB, there is a long train of self-referentially incoherent moral stances on the part of Sock-Puppet JS. In the latest he is now trying to suggest that he has not advocated for relativism and/or subjectivism and/or emotivism backed up by radical fallibilism.
Please stop speaking in disregard to the truth. I have, on more than one occasion, stated that moral subjectivism and moral relativism are not the same thing. Yet you insist on conflating the two to be able to erect your strawman argument.JSmith_{January 16, 2018
January
01
Jan
16
16
2018
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT}

SB, there is a long train of self-referentially incoherent moral stances on the part of Sock-Puppet JS. In the latest he is now trying to suggest that he has not advocated for relativism and/or subjectivism and/or emotivism backed up by radical fallibilism. It seems he does not wish to face the cluster of challenges to such views that I headlined earlier today. KFkairosfocus_{January 16, 2018
January
01
Jan
16
16
2018
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT}

KF:
For example claims to be a relative of people victimised by the Nazi holocaust have to be seriously doubted. And, benefit of the doubt is gone. KF
Right. The name of he game is to taint an intellectual discussion with an emotional appeal. Whether true or not, the irony persists. Repeated references to the Jewish Holocaust are a clear indicator that the referencer is quietly assuming the objectively evil nature of the act, even as he continues to deny it. And so we have the formulation: "This is, really, really bad (objective), except that it only seems so to me (subjective). It doesn't work. Also, if you have time, review my brief comments @289.StephenB_{January 16, 2018
January
01
Jan
16
16
2018
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT}

SB, appreciated, though we need to understand the trollish rhetorical stratagem that may be at work. Lies work best when they have shreds of fact to hang on and lend plausibility in the eyes of the implacably hostile or those who may be easily led astray by same. And I say that fully aware of our joint work on the Weak Argument Correctives that the trolls in the penumbra of animus sites willfully choose to disregard. On looking I think the lack of the spirit of truth compounded by unjustified animus has led to severe degradation of rationality much less reasonableness and responsibility. Just in this thread, it is clear that JS is a sock-puppet throwaway identity for a troll of many aliases over the years. That confirmation lends a very different colour to discussions in the thread and in recent weeks. For example claims to be a relative of people victimised by the Nazi holocaust have to be seriously doubted. And, benefit of the doubt is gone. KF PS: The ill-founded and intended to be tainting accusation against the Angelic Doctor is a serious warning flag that with just a little more may well force us to assume as a matter of prudence that OA is a false flag troll, the sort termed a concern troll. And, I say that as a convinced Protestant.kairosfocus_{January 16, 2018
January
01
Jan
16
16
2018
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT}

JS
All moral values should be open to questioning.
What about the moral value that you just expressed? Should it be questioned? If the matter is open for debate, then of what value is it as a guide to human behavior? You are still not getting it. Person X What is the proper road to San Francisco? Person Y You can take Highway 70, but that claim is open to question. Person X Thank's a lot but I think I will ask person Z the same question. I can't afford to be wrong. Person X Which way to SanFrancisco? Person Z Take Highway 70. It's a lock. Person X: Thanks. Why didn't person Y tell me that? Person Z: He doesn't think that there is any such place as San Francisco.StephenB_{January 16, 2018
January
01
Jan
16
16
2018
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

KF, I appreciate and agree with your comments at 283. The only reason I became involved in the theological dispute was to defend the natural moral law as a reality that can be apprehended in the absence of religious faith, while recognizing that scripture specifies that same law, albeit in greater detail and with more authority. I don't think it is fair for others to assert of imply that the NML as man's wisdom, and for that reason, I take up the subject.StephenB_{January 16, 2018
January
01
Jan
16
16
2018
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT}

HeKS, I am well aware of the time line and diminishing rate of change in the development of the NT Canons. My points, perhaps hastily expressed, were that [a] over 100 years passed after the death of Christ before there was any semblance of agreement on what really qualified as scripture, [b] that the issue wasn't finally settled until the 4th Century, and , most important, [c] an oral tradition of Scripture preceded the written tradition of scripture. Those are incontestable facts and those are the facts that I presented. I didn't just assert myself in that context, I was responding to comments that militate against it. Just because I say the matter was settled late does not mean that I am unaware of the fact that it was almost settled much earlier. However, I think you are overestimating the value of ALMOST. It seems impossible to have a discussion with OA at that level. In any case, you will notice that I didn't even mention the issue of authority, which is crucial and would have prompted even more controversy. In terms of human wisdom vs biblical wisdom, my position, again probably hastily expressed, is that philosophy has its place, but scripture is the standard of truth. More importantly truth is truth and scriptural truth cannot contradict or unvalidate truths found in other areas. Yes, scriptural truth is on a higher order, and I am prepared to emphasize that point as well. Just because I don't emphasize the latter point doesn't mean that I don't hold it, but when I am correcting errors at one extreme, it is sometimes necessary to pay tribute to the other extreme to show what the middle looks like. I think this what you are perceiving. OA began the conversation by claiming that Aquinas was a student and a follower of someone who supported man/boy sex (Aristotle). You may be willing to let something like that pass, but I am not. All I have been insisting on is a reasonable perspective on these matters when the subject objective morality is concerned. The Ten Commandments are a specification of the natural moral law. I get the former from faith and the latter from reason. OA implies that this makes me a follower of man's wisdom and I resent that characterization. This is why I took the tack that I did. If you would like to discuss the point, I would be happy to do so.StephenB_{January 16, 2018
January
01
Jan
16
16
2018
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT}

JSmith:
The WHAT is the process that is followed (rational, logical, evidence based examination).
And that is clearly well beyond your capabilities.
All moral values should be open to questioning.
Everything is open to questioning. The hard part, for you anyway, is being able to understand that answers when provided.ET_{January 16, 2018
January
01
Jan
16
16
2018
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT}

KF
JS, the question you ask (again, despite repeated corrections) as to WHO determines what is the correct understanding of key concepts and terms etc shows the magnitude of the error at work. the answer is not a who but a WHAT.
The WHAT is the process that is followed (rational, logical, evidence based examination). But you don't have a WHAT without a WHO to draw a conclusion from the WHAT. Which takes us full circle to my claim that started this whole objective vs subjective moral values nonsense. All moral values should be open to questioning.JSmith_{January 16, 2018
January
01
Jan
16
16
2018
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT}

PS: For convenience, the parable:
It is not too hard to figure out that our civilisation is in deep trouble and is most likely headed for shipwreck. (And of course, that sort of concern is dismissed as “apocalyptic,” or neurotic pessimism that refuses to pause and smell the roses.) Plato’s Socrates spoke to this sort of situation, long since, in the ship of state parable in The Republic, Bk VI:
>>[Soc.] I perceive, I said, that you are vastly amused at having plunged me into such a hopeless discussion; but now hear the parable, and then you will be still more amused at the meagreness of my imagination: for the manner in which the best men are treated in their own States is so grievous that no single thing on earth is comparable to it; and therefore, if I am to plead their cause, I must have recourse to fiction, and put together a figure made up of many things, like the fabulous unions of goats and stags which are found in pictures. Imagine then a fleet or a ship in which there is a captain [–> often interpreted, ship’s owner] who is taller and stronger than any of the crew, but he is a little deaf and has a similar infirmity in sight, and his knowledge of navigation is not much better. [= The people own the community and in the mass are overwhelmingly strong, but are ill equipped on the whole to guide, guard and lead it] The sailors are quarrelling with one another about the steering – every one is of opinion that he has a right to steer [= selfish ambition to rule and dominate], though he has never learned the art of navigation and cannot tell who taught him or when he learned, and will further assert that it cannot be taught, and they are ready to cut in pieces any one who says the contrary. They throng about the captain, begging and praying him to commit the helm to them [–> kubernetes, steersman, from which both cybernetics and government come in English]; and if at any time they do not prevail, but others are preferred to them, they kill the others or throw them overboard [ = ruthless contest for domination of the community], and having first chained up the noble captain’s senses with drink or some narcotic drug [ = manipulation and befuddlement, cf. the parable of the cave], they mutiny and take possession of the ship and make free with the stores; thus, eating and drinking, they proceed on their voyage in such a manner as might be expected of them [–> Cf here Luke’s subtle case study in Ac 27]. Him who is their partisan and cleverly aids them in their plot for getting the ship out of the captain’s hands into their own whether by force or persuasion [–> Nihilistic will to power on the premise of might and manipulation making ‘right’ ‘truth’ ‘justice’ ‘rights’ etc], they compliment with the name of sailor, pilot, able seaman, and abuse the other sort of man, whom they call a good-for-nothing; but that the true pilot must pay attention to the year and seasons and sky and stars and winds, and whatever else belongs to his art, if he intends to be really qualified for the command of a ship, and that he must and will be the steerer, whether other people like or not-the possibility of this union of authority with the steerer’s art has never seriously entered into their thoughts or been made part of their calling. Now in vessels which are in a state of mutiny and by sailors who are mutineers, how will the true pilot be regarded? Will he not be called by them a prater, a star-gazer, a good-for-nothing? [Ad.] Of course, said Adeimantus. [Soc.] Then you will hardly need, I said, to hear the interpretation of the figure, which describes the true philosopher in his relation to the State[ --> here we see Plato's philosoppher-king emerging]; for you understand already. [Ad.] Certainly. [Soc.] Then suppose you now take this parable to the gentleman who is surprised at finding that philosophers have no honour in their cities; explain it to him and try to convince him that their having honour would be far more extraordinary. [Ad.] I will. [Soc.] Say to him, that, in deeming the best votaries of philosophy to be useless to the rest of the world, he is right; but also tell him to attribute their uselessness to the fault of those who will not use them, and not to themselves. The pilot should not humbly beg the sailors to be commanded by him –that is not the order of nature; neither are ‘the wise to go to the doors of the rich’ –the ingenious author of this saying told a lie –but the truth is, that, when a man is ill, whether he be rich or poor, to the physician he must go, and he who wants to be governed, to him who is able to govern. The ruler who is good for anything ought not to beg his subjects to be ruled by him [ --> down this road lies the modern solution: a sound, well informed people will seek sound leaders, who will not need to manipulate or bribe or worse, and such a ruler will in turn be checked by the soundness of the people, cf. US DoI, 1776]; although the present governors of mankind are of a different stamp; they may be justly compared to the mutinous sailors, and the true helmsmen to those who are called by them good-for-nothings and star-gazers. [Ad.] Precisely so, he said. [Soc] For these reasons, and among men like these, philosophy, the noblest pursuit of all, is not likely to be much esteemed by those of the opposite faction; not that the greatest and most lasting injury is done to her by her opponents, but by her own professing followers, the same of whom you suppose the accuser to say, that the greater number of them are arrant rogues, and the best are useless; in which opinion I agreed [--> even among the students of the sound state (here, political philosophy and likely history etc.), many are of unsound motivation and intent, so mere education is not enough, character transformation is critical]. [Ad.] Yes. [Soc.] And the reason why the good are useless has now been explained? [Ad.] True. [Soc.] Then shall we proceed to show that the corruption of the majority is also unavoidable, and that this is not to be laid to the charge of philosophy any more than the other? [Ad.] By all means. [Soc.] And let us ask and answer in turn, first going back to the description of the gentle and noble nature.[ -- > note the character issue] Truth, as you will remember, was his leader, whom he followed always and in all things [ --> The spirit of truth as a marker]; failing in this, he was an impostor, and had no part or lot in true philosophy [--> the spirit of truth is a marker, for good or ill] . . . >>
(There is more than an echo of this in Acts 27, a real world case study. [Luke, a physician, was an educated Greek with a taste for subtle references.] This blog post, on soundness in policy, will also help)
kairosfocus_{January 16, 2018
January
01
Jan
16
16
2018
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT}

HeKS, SB and OA (& thanks, ET): Let me set aside for the moment the possibility that OA is little more than a concern troll seeking to derail a serious matter with a fundamentally dishonest side-track. The sort of tactics just exposed by ET and laid out for all to see in his linked thread. (And yes, I am very aware of such tactics. After all, I cut my eye-teeth dealing with Communists and their front groups full of the duped. Lost a beloved Auntie to the hate they stirred up.) Instead, let us consider OA to represent an adherent of a peculiar theological school of thought who has wandered in here and sees an issue that is of great concern to him. In that case, OA needs to understand that UD is addressing an environment and dealing with fundamental topics that are highly polarised and so it is constantly, obsessively monitored by those with a malevolent, jealous eye who have a ruthless agit-prop agenda that does not have the good of our civilisation at heart. Frankly, they are much like the mutinous sailors in Plato's parable of the ship of state. And, they and those they are cannon fodder for, would lead our civilisation to shipwreck. Remember, these are people who frankly are enabling the ongoing, worst holocaust in history. In that context, for cause, UD does not normally engage in arcane theological disputes, certainly not in dragged out form that pulls discussions off on successive tangents. I suggest that another forum would be better for the discussion which has now begun to dominate this thread. Perhaps, you may want to launch an off-topic forum for subjects of interest. The main issue at UD is, the scientific inference to design and its warrant. That brings in relevant cases, domains of science dealing with the world of life and cosmology, information and thermodynamics, physics and chemistry, Mathematics and Computer Science, etc. It also points to logic and first principles of reason, epistemology and the linked moral government that is inextricably entangled with responsible, rational freedom. The past several weeks have sufficed to demonstrate that the problems we face do not lie with the core warrant for the design inference. They lie in controlling worldview-level commitments and ideologies that have championed radical fallibilism, thus several associated schools of thought that undermine rationality, understanding of warrant and knowledge and much more. Crooked yardsticks have been made into standards of what is straight, accurate, upright. Plumb-line tests have been recklessly swept away (especially the significance of self-evident first truths) and utter absurdity and manipulative soft form nihilism are driving the train for the cliff. Those are major results, and they will guide us going forward. Yes, these results also have import for the dominant agendas that drive the course of our civilisation and allow us to see how key institutions have become increasingly compromised and corrupt, serving as vehicles of manipulation, soft tyranny and civilisational suicide. That has geostrategic implications, so heedless of consequences are we collectively. So, yes, what has gone wrong with institutional science, science and general education, the media and its collective ability to shape opinion, major responsible professions, the churches, law and courts, parliaments and governments all have a part too. But, we must not lose sight of main focus and we must not forget the penumbra of toxic, animus-driven attack sites. It is time to turn and to counter-attack, knowing what is at stake. Fix bayonets. Check satchels of grenades and gas masks. Make sure of the Belgian Rattlesnakes and their ammo drums. KFkairosfocus_{January 16, 2018
January
01
Jan
16
16
2018
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT}

ET, I am going to bet that THAT is not going to be responsibly discussed in the penumbra of animus sites. Not to mention what I put up this morning, on the core failure of the ethical systems being championed. (Where, BTW, that seeps out to taint their epistemology also. Recall, reasoning is morally governed i/l/o duties of care to truth, sound logic and more.) KFkairosfocus_{January 16, 2018
January
01
Jan
16
16
2018
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 13 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply