US AG Barr on the importance of religious liberty

_{kairosfocus

October 14, 2019

Academic Freedom, Atheism, Defending our Civilization, News Highlights, Religion}

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

Here (as updated):

Money clip:

The imperative of protecting religious freedom was not just a nod in the direction of piety. It reflects the framers’ belief that religion was indispensable to sustaining our free system of government . . . ”

Food for thought. END

F/N, U/D: Prepared text, found. I think he mostly read the speech, let us clip and discuss below.

PS: First, a different view on political spectra (than where one sat in the French legislature 200 years ago or thereabouts):

Next, Aquinas on law, as summarised:

Third, Schaeffer’s line of despair analysis, as adjusted and extended:

Let’s add on straight vs spin

Comments

No, what, hazel? No you cannot refer to any given wave by its frequency or equivalently by its wavelength? Really? Please answer my questions. You are clearly not reading what I am saying.ET_{November 7, 2019
November
11
Nov
7
07
2019
06:02 PM
6
06
02
PM
PDT}

No. Frequency and wavelength are reciprocals of each other, so one measurement can easily be converted to the other, with reciprocal units, but they are not the same things. I used to teach this very specifically in trig. Yes, you are both talking about a property of the same wave, but the frequency of the wave and the wavelength of the wave are different things. If I wrote a test question and asked a student what the distance from one peak to another was called, frequency would not be the right answer. Why is this important, and why did this subject come up???hazel_{November 7, 2019
November
11
Nov
7
07
2019
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT}

Let's take a poll: Can any wave be referred to by its frequency or equivalently by its wavelength? For example if one person is talking about CO2's emissions by their frequencies and another person is using their wavelengths, are those two people talking about the exact same thing?ET_{November 7, 2019
November
11
Nov
7
07
2019
05:35 PM
5
05
35
PM
PDT}

Some silly people think that life was the product of spontaneous generation. Those same silly people believe that differential accumulations of genetic accidents, errors and mistakes, along with a ton of contingent serendipity, led to our existence. Those morons claim that mins arose from the mindless via blind and mindless processes. How foolish can people be?ET_{November 7, 2019
November
11
Nov
7
07
2019
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT}

EG “Vivid, you and I have had some friendly discussions. Are you really going to take this tact? Honestly EG I don’t recall having many friendly discussions with you. We’re You using a different screen name? Vividvividbleau_{November 7, 2019
November
11
Nov
7
07
2019
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT}

Ed George:
Are you really going to take this tact?
Sometimes the truth hurts.ET_{November 7, 2019
November
11
Nov
7
07
2019
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT}

Ed George:
Or like discussing if Frequency = Wavelength with some moron who keeps making that claim.
YOU are the moron who doesn't understand the logic and reasoning behind frequency = wavelength. It has only been explained to you about one hundred times and you still remain willfully ignorant. And your willful ignorance is neither an argument nor a refutation. AGAIN, from Wikipedia:
The 630 meter (or 600 meter) amateur radio band is a frequency band allocated by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) to amateur radio operators, and it ranges from 472 to 479 kHz, or equivalently 625.9 to 635.1 meters wavelength.
Frequency OR EQUIVILENTLY wavelength. Poor little-mined Eddie will never produce anything that refutes it.ET_{November 7, 2019
November
11
Nov
7
07
2019
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT}

Vivid
I can’t believe you don’t have an open mind to an illogical, irrational argument. Shame on you!!
Vivid, you and I have had some friendly discussions. Are you really going to take this tact?Ed George_{November 7, 2019
November
11
Nov
7
07
2019
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT}

See Terry Pratchett's "Hogfather" (who is a Discworld analog to Santa Claus). I've posted the text to this before, but here's a clip: Death on the need to beliefhazel_{November 7, 2019
November
11
Nov
7
07
2019
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT}

Some silly people may believe that Santa Claus must exist if there are to be Christmas presents under the tree. Wiser people know that the magic bearded man isn't there, what you're seeing is the product of human behavior, and nothing more.DerekDiMarco_{November 7, 2019
November
11
Nov
7
07
2019
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT}

JAD I can’t believe you don’t have an open mind to an illogical, irrational argument. Shame on you!! Vividvividbleau_{November 7, 2019
November
11
Nov
7
07
2019
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT}

ET
It’s like discussing if 2 + 2 = 4 with people who deny it
Or like discussing if Frequency = Wavelength with some moron who keeps making that claim.Ed George_{November 7, 2019
November
11
Nov
7
07
2019
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT}

Ed George:
Well, it is nice to see that you are honest enough to admit that you are not willing to keep an open mind when discussing this subject.
It's like discussing if 2 + 2 = 4 with people who deny itET_{November 7, 2019
November
11
Nov
7
07
2019
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT}

JaD
PS There is no logical argument that can justify so-called moral subjectivism.
Well, it is nice to see that you are honest enough to admit that you are not willing to keep an open mind when discussing this subject.
So with that said I am bowing out of this discussion.
Don’t let the door hit you on the butt when you leave.Ed George_{November 7, 2019
November
11
Nov
7
07
2019
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT}

Intellectually “honest”* atheists admit they have no basis for morality. See the comments I made back in 2017:
Bertrand Russell said… “I cannot see how to refute the arguments for the subjectivity of ethical values, but I find myself incapable of believing that all that is wrong with wanton cruelty is that I don’t like it.” In Russell’s atheistic world all values are subjective and the only thing that could possibly be wrong with wanton cruelty (or pedophilia, for that matter) is that he doesn’t like it. [Another atheist, Michael] Ruse understands the dilemma quite well. A subjective system of morality is nothing more than a rickety shack with no foundation; it will collapse in the first good wind…
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-dont-atheists-trust-each-other/#comment-637914 [*Of course, how do we know an atheist is being either intellectually or ethically honest when he is the one who sets the standards of honesty? It’s one thing if he sets standard for himself. It’s quite another when he tries to impose his personal standards on everyone else.] How do we know a moral relativist or subjectivist is being honest when he (or she) is the one who sets the standards of honesty? It’s one thing if he sets standard for himself. It’s quite another when he tries to impose his personal standards on everyone else. In other words, if he makes the claim he is being honest in an interpersonal way he can only do so by using a standard beside his own personal standard but that undermines his moral subjectivist claims (proving that it is completely irrational.) This is why I try to avoid getting involved in discussion with moral subjectivists. It’s a total waste of time. So with that said I am bowing out of this discussion. PS There is no logical argument that can justify so-called moral subjectivism.john_a_designer_{November 7, 2019
November
11
Nov
7
07
2019
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT}

hazel:
Logical conclusions depend on the truth of the premises and the truth of any intermediate propositions.
Can you show that isn't the case here?ET_{November 7, 2019
November
11
Nov
7
07
2019
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT}

615, quoting Sev, is exactly right. Logical conclusions depend on the truth of the premises and the truth of any intermediate propositions.hazel_{November 7, 2019
November
11
Nov
7
07
2019
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT}

seversky:
If, on the other hand, it is that people agree that there is mutual benefit to living in social groups but that there need to be rules intended to guarantee that everyone’s rights and interests are respected by others then that should serve as the basis for a functional morality.
People "agree" there is a mutual benefit because the morals are objective and don't seem to get in their way.ET_{November 7, 2019
November
11
Nov
7
07
2019
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT}

seversky:
It is perfectly possible to pass moral judgements based on personal or consensual moral views that make no appeal to any supposed objective morality.
It is a meaningless judgement.
What is your evidence for the existence of an objective morality?
Starts with the scientific evidence for Intelligent Design.ET_{November 7, 2019
November
11
Nov
7
07
2019
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT}

John_a_designer@ 610
Only if an eternally existing transcendent moral standard exists is there any basis for universal human rights.
I don't agree. Some transcendent, objective moral standard is not required. All that is required is that human beings agree amongst themselves on any moral standards and human rights which are to apply to all and by which all agree that they are bound.
Metaphysically atheistic naturalism/ materialism does not accept the existence of an eternally existing transcendent moral standard.
Agreed.
Therefore, atheistic naturalism/ materialism does not have a basis for universal human rights.
See my first comment above.
However, I do believe that Judeo-Christian moral teaching provides a better grounding than Platonic philosophy or any other world view.
You are fully entitled to your own view. I think that there is some good in Judeo-Christian moral teaching but some is also questionable and even objectionable.
Obviously any kind of antirealist or moral subjectivist view is in even worse shape than an atheistic world view. It’s basically moral nihilism which is totally irrational.
If moral subjectivism is seen as some sort of every-man-for-himself position then it would indeed be nihilistic. If, on the other hand, it is that people agree that there is mutual benefit to living in social groups but that there need to be rules intended to guarantee that everyone's rights and interests are respected by others then that should serve as the basis for a functional morality.Seversky_{November 7, 2019
November
11
Nov
7
07
2019
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT}

John_a_designer@ 607
Another key moral obligation is the obligation to be truthful and honest. But how can I be sure you’re being honest unless there is some kind of interpersonal standard of honesty?
As Dr House was wont to say "Everybody lies", and I think that's true. It's what people do even where there is some agree interpersonal standard of honesty. They do it usually because they feel there is some overriding reason to dissemble although there are some who just don't care about The Truth one way or another, they will just say anything they think will get them their way. Agreed standards of interpersonal honesty only work with those are committed to respect them.Seversky_{November 7, 2019
November
11
Nov
7
07
2019
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT}

Sev@613, well said.
A deductive logical argument is one in which the conclusion is necessarily entailed by the premises. If the premises are true and then the conclusions will be true.
I think this forms the basis of the disagreements here. KF and others are making an argument based on premises that are not demonstrably true.Ed George_{November 7, 2019
November
11
Nov
7
07
2019
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT}

John_a_designer@ 602
A moral subjectivist believes there are NO OBJECTIVE MORAL VALUES. Again that means there are no real interpersonal moral obligations, therefore, there is no basis for universal human rights
That there are no objective moral values does not preclude the possibility of people agreeing amongst themselves to be bound by a moral code arrived at by intersubjective agreement, including appropriate human rights.
Moral subjectivism is a very irrational self-refuting moral perspective. I have every right to criticize that kind of thinking, even if I doesn’t come across as being nice or “civil.”
You can be criticize whatever you like and be as rude as you like doing it. I don't recognize that there is any right not to be offended and neither do any of the great bills, or declarations or charters of human rights. Moral subjectivism is not self-refuting, however. It is perfectly possible to pass moral judgements based on personal or consensual moral views that make no appeal to any supposed objective morality.
However, you can’t make a better world if there is no moral truth or no real basis for universal human rights.
Yes, you can. You can work with others for freely-agreed mutual benefit. That's a more than sufficient basis.
Please notice that those who believe morality is subjective are making a self-refuting argument. They are arguing that there are no true and “objective” moral values and obligations. But the premise there are no true and “objective moral values and obligations is a universal truth claim about morality. But how can subjective opinions and beliefs be universal?
Yes, the claim that there are no objective moral values is a claim about what 'is'. It can be compared to what we observe to see how far it might be true. It could be disproved by providing irrefutable evidence for the existence of an objective morality. But the claim about the non-existence of objective morality is a different category from any moral views held by the claimant. The first is about what 'is' the case, the others are about how we as human beings 'ought' to behave towards one another.
Actually, it’s a “morality” based on egocentric self-righteousness being used to justify immorality, intolerance and contempt for ones fellow man.
Believers can display self-righteousness and intolerance and contempt for those who don't share their beliefs in spite of their claimed objective morality. Atheists can be just as dismissive. It's a human failing, unfortunately.
Moral subjectivism is not based on reason but on rationalization. Your rationalization does not refute that there really is objective moral truth and, therefore, a solid basis for universal human rights.
What is your evidence for the existence of an objective morality? Where is it stored and in what form? How can we observe it? Where does it come from?Seversky_{November 7, 2019
November
11
Nov
7
07
2019
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT}

John_a_designer@ 596
Refutation requires engagement with ideas, and a striving to understand the truth. From it arise norms of civility, good faith among interlocutors, and a willingness to consider the merits of different arguments. It is easier to denounce without disputation, to assume someone is wrong without bothering to discover whether they are wrong or demonstrating how they are wrong.
According to Merriam-Webster, to refute is to prove wrong by argument or evidence, to show to be false or erroneous or to deny the truth or accuracy of. Some seem to confuse refutation with denial.
Personal opinions are not arguments, therefore, prove nothing.
Agreed, but is that any reason to deny others the right to express opinions?
Logical arguments begin with FACTS which are either (1) self-evidently true, or (2) very probably true via in valid inductive reasoning. That’s logic 101. (Logic is a branch of philosophy for those who are adverse to philosophy.)
A deductive logical argument is one in which the conclusion is necessarily entailed by the premises. If the premises are true and then the conclusions will be true. However, a logical argument may follow the correct form but be complete nonsense. For example, we could argue: All men are mortal Plato was a man Therefore, Plato was mortal. This argument is valid in that it follows the correct form and it is also sound in that, as far as we know, Plato was a man and all men are mortal. But we could also argue, borrowing from Lewis Carroll: All borogroves are slithy Mome raths are borogroves Therefore, mome raths are slithy. This is a valid argument that is complete nonsense. Logic prescribes the proper form of an argument, it does not guarantee the truth. That depends on the content of the premises.
The proposition, “Personal opinions are not arguments, therefore, prove nothing,” is self-evidently true
No, that proposition is true by definition. It depends on your understanding of what is meant by "personal opinion" and "argument". It depends on contextual information in the mind of the claimant and any audience. In fact, as I have argued before, on the correspondence theory of truth we measure the truth value of a claim by the extent it corresponds to what it purports to describe. In the example of the tree-rings I have quoted before, the history of the tree is obvious to the dendrochronologist but not to me. He views those rings in the context of specialist knowledge that I lack, Does it add anything to his interpretation of the tree-rings to call it self-evident?
You can believe your opinions but that doesn’t obligate me to believe you.
No one has said you are so obligated.
This becomes serious when we are discussing or debating morality or human rights because what we are talking about is OBLIGATION. (Ethics and morality BTW is another branch of philosophy.)
Yes, it is serious. But if we cannot derive 'ought' from 'is' then what are moral codes and human rights grounded in if not personal opinion?
If your argument about morality rejects moral obligation then whatever you are arguing for IS NOT morality. To persist arguing that way is in fact immoral because you are trying to force your personal views on someone else. What right do you have to do that?
The argument for me is not about the value of moral obligation but whether it is imposed from outside or whether it is self-imposed. Don't you want a say in the nature of any moral code to which you might be subjected? Don't you want a say in whatever human rights you might be granted?Seversky_{November 7, 2019
November
11
Nov
7
07
2019
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT}

Whose standard then is the basis for interpersonal moral obligation?john_a_designer_{November 7, 2019
November
11
Nov
7
07
2019
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT}

JAD -
That Christian theism is the only possible basis for universal human rights. Rather the argument is that the standard needs to be an eternally existing transcendent one
Why? I don't see the necessity for the standard to be eternal and transcendent.Bob O'H_{November 7, 2019
November
11
Nov
7
07
2019
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT}

Here is an argument I have presented before at UD which I think is worth repeating here for some context.
Only if an eternally existing transcendent moral standard exists is there any basis for universal human rights. Metaphysically atheistic naturalism/ materialism does not accept the existence of an eternally existing transcendent moral standard. Therefore, atheistic naturalism/ materialism does not have a basis for universal human rights.
Please notice what I am not arguing: (1.) That atheists do not believe in human rights. Many do and do so sincerely if not very strongly. But strongly held beliefs and opinions are not the same as moral obligations. (How am I or anyone obligated to your personal opinions?) Human rights are moral obligations. Atheistic naturalism/materialism has no logical basis for human rights. (2.) That atheists do not have human rights. They do. Again the argument is that they have no BASIS for human rights or any kind of objective moral standard. (3.) That Christian theism is the only possible basis for universal human rights. Rather the argument is that the standard needs to be an eternally existing transcendent one. Platonic philosophy, for example, at least appears to provide such a standard. Are there others? Apparently so. However, I do believe that Judeo-Christian moral teaching provides a better grounding than Platonic philosophy or any other world view. Obviously any kind of antirealist or moral subjectivist view is in even worse shape than an atheistic world view. It’s basically moral nihilism which is totally irrational.john_a_designer_{November 7, 2019
November
11
Nov
7
07
2019
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT}

BO'H: we find ourselves inescapably under moral government as we recognise that first principles of right reason are inescapably joined by similar first duties. By inescapability, we know these to be self evident, as lurks behind your own argument just now. We then are entitled to use that self evidence to infer that the roots of reality are such that IS and OUGHT must be fused there, as I laid out in my twelve point discussion several times above. Your candidate for such a root is ______ and we should find it superior to the God of ethical theism because _____ . KFkairosfocus_{November 7, 2019
November
11
Nov
7
07
2019
02:56 AM
2
02
56
AM
PDT}

JAD @ 602 - you don't actually answer my question in your postscript. I was asking about who you think your moral obligation is towards. So far ET and ba77 have given a couple of answers, but you may well have a different one.Bob O'H_{November 7, 2019
November
11
Nov
7
07
2019
02:36 AM
2
02
36
AM
PDT}

Another key moral obligation is the obligation to be truthful and honest. But how can I be sure you’re being honest unless there is some kind of interpersonal standard of honesty? The following is a comment I made on an earlier thread that is worth repeating again here.
The objectivist [or moral realist] would argue that there must be a real standard of honesty that applies universally to all members of society. Indeed, society would break down if people weren’t obligated to be honest and tell the truth. Think of government, criminal justice or commerce. When people are dishonest our basic institutions begin to break down. We have a number of interlocutors who show up here who proudly self-identify as moral subjectivists. How can we trust anything any of them say if they are not obligated to be honest and tell the truth? Why would they be obligated if there is no real standard of honesty?
Our interlocutors appear to not only have a problem with honesty in the moral or ethical sense but in the intellectual sense as well. Frankly, I don’t how we can have any kind of honest dialogue, discussion or debate about anything unless we begin with an objective common ground standard of honesty. But how can we start there if no such common ground standard to begin with?john_a_designer_{November 6, 2019
November
11
Nov
6
06
2019
10:03 PM
10
10
03
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 25 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply