US AG Barr on the importance of religious liberty

_{kairosfocus
October 14, 2019

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

1}_{Categories
Academic Freedom
Atheism
Defending our Civilization
News Highlights
Religion}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; 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

"The computer you are typing your messages through is “just chemical reactions” too." You're typing on a chemical-reaction-based computer???? Wow! Mine's electrical. Where did you get a chemical-reaction-based computer????DerekDiMarco_{November 5, 2019
November
11
Nov
5
05
2019
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT}

All of this talk of morality is usually words words words, when what matters are deeds. So let's look at deeds and ignore empty words. Why don't we look at murder? Seems like that would be a great stand in for who is actually moral. Wikipedia says these are countries with the lowest homicide rates in the world: Japan (0.2) Singapore (0.2) China, Hong Kong (0.3) Luxembourg (0.3) Indonesia (0.4) Norway (0.5) Oman (0.5) Switzerland (0.5) United Arab Emirates (0.5) China (0.6) Looks like the Asian philosophies are the clear winners, and the others should try to do better.DerekDiMarco_{November 5, 2019
November
11
Nov
5
05
2019
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT}

John_a_designer@ 581
In other words, if moral obligation or “ought” does not really exist then so-called morality is just a pretense where selfish people try to con and manipulate others to get what they want. Of course, none of this bodes well for the weak and afflicted in society, who are told they are oppressed only to be exploited by so-called social justice activist who are promising to liberate them. The oppressed end up being pawns in a ruthless and unprincipled power struggle.
The question is, are the weak, the afflicted, the oppressed and everyone else in a society, entitled to a say in the moral codes to which they are to be subject? As I see it, the real danger is totalitarianism, whether religious or political. When people come to believe they are in possession of some incontrovertible truth, whether it be the dogma of a particular faith or a political ideology, it is but a short step to believing that they have a warrant to do almost anything in the furtherance of that truth. That is why we see some adherents of a religion believing that they are entitled to kill all infidels or advocates of a political revolution believe they should kill all those who are held to have oppressed the masses. I believe that, over time, any free society will evolve a set of moral principles to which the vast majority are content to be subject of their own free will. For those who regard this as a messy and imperfect process - and it is - I would ask what alternative has a better warrant? Even though I am now content to be regarded as an atheist/materialist, I was raised a Christian and I have read the Bible. That is why I have challenged those Christians who believe that the divine morality as revealed in the Bible is in some way superior to a secular humanist version to show me where God provides a detailed rationale for any of His moral imperatives. I'm still waiting.Seversky_{November 5, 2019
November
11
Nov
5
05
2019
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT}

Hazel, there is a difference between a generally acknowledged objective observable fact and an undeniable truth. KFkairosfocus_{November 5, 2019
November
11
Nov
5
05
2019
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT}

Hazel
Not one person that I know of has ever denied that error exists.
I agree. But when you have to hang your hat on this fact when all evidence, all history, all variations between cultures, all variations over time within the same culture, all variations over time with the same person, points towards subjective moral values, someone is clutching at straws. Duck-duck guyEd George_{November 5, 2019
November
11
Nov
5
05
2019
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT}

Hazel “Not one person that I know of has ever denied that error exists.” “6: It is therefore self evident.” Vividvividbleau_{November 5, 2019
November
11
Nov
5
05
2019
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT}

Kairosfocus@ 567
The prior discussion is there, starting with E = Error exists, something which we consider a commonplace fact. What gets interesting is when we try its denial, ~E. This, retranslated, means it is error to assert E. The attempt to deny E ends up affirming it. E is undeniably true. It is self-evident.
I think it would be helpful to try and clarify some of the concepts in play here. When we say that "error exists" what do we mean by error? If I say "one plus one equals three", that is an error by the rules of arithmetic but is a genetic mutation, even one that is detrimental to the organism in which it occurs, an error? That error exists is not denied or that the denial of error is self-defeating but if it only refers to missteps in operations performed by human beings within formal systems such as logic or mathematics then so what? Human beings are fallible. They make mistakes. That is what we observe. As for truth, we have usually converged on the correspondence theory but are truth and falsehood binary values by that theory? Is a claim or theory that is 90% accurate but 10% inaccurate, true or false? Quantum mechanics and relativity theory have both been confirmed to extremely degrees of accuracy, yet physicists are finding it very difficult to reconcile them. It looks like they could both be incomplete - or wrong - in some way. Does their very high degree of descriptive and predictive accuracy mean that they are true or does their irreconcilability mean that they are both false? Or does the correspondence theory of truth mean that it is variable that can take many values between absolutely true and absolutely false? On the question of moral claims, once again, if the truth of a claim resides in the extent to which it corresponds to what it purports to describe then moral claims, which do not describe but only prescribe, can be neither true nor false. If there is a different concept of truth in play then we need to be sure to differentiate it from the correspondence theory to avoid equivocation.Seversky_{November 5, 2019
November
11
Nov
5
05
2019
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT}

Hazel, The issue pivots on what it means to be rational, a pre-requisite for being intelligent. That is, one must be able to reason, one is not merely a GIGO-limited computational substrate grinding away blindly on dynamic-stochastic processes. Through, blind chance and equally blind mechanical necessity. That is, one needs to be really free in a way that is responsibly rational. Reppert put the key issue -- and again this is one of those points where inveterate objectors tend to dismiss or assume it is not important:
> . . . let us suppose that brain state A [--> notice, state of a wetware, electrochemically operated computational substrate], which is token identical to the thought that all men are mortal, and brain state B, which is token identical to the thought that Socrates is a man, together cause the belief [--> concious, perceptual state or disposition] that Socrates is mortal. It isn’t enough for rational inference that these events be those beliefs, it is also necessary that the causal transaction be in virtue of the content of those thoughts . . . [But] if naturalism is true, then the propositional content is irrelevant to the causal transaction that produces the conclusion, and [so] we do not have a case of rational inference. In rational inference, as Lewis puts it, one thought causes another thought not by being, but by being seen to be, the ground for it. But causal transactions in the brain occur in virtue of the brain’s being in a particular type of state that is relevant to physical causal transactions.
Here we see that computation and rational contemplation have radically different characteristics. The latter must be responsibly free or it has no credibility. Precisely what the former cannot be, to avoid unreliability. That responsible freedom is what is effectively described in terms of being guided and governed by inescapable, known duties to truth, right reason, prudence, fairness etc. Governed as opposed to controlled. There is and can be no algorithm for truth, prudence or fairness much less right reason; not even a stochastically controlled "exploratory search and optimise [or at least satisfice]" one. The impact of such becomes clearer when one contemplates disregard for such law of responsible rational behaviour: for one, disregard for truth with intent to profit, AKA lying. Disregard for right reason, AKA irrationality. Disregard for prudence, AKA folly. Disregard forfairness, aka selfishness and/or oppressive injustice, etc. No wonder, in our arguments, debates and quarrels we routinely, habitually expect others to abide by such law. Even, when we hope to gain advantage by getting away with violation. These are the matches we are playing with. KFkairosfocus_{November 5, 2019
November
11
Nov
5
05
2019
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT}

We had a long thread on this a while back, with DaveS, among others. Not one person that I know of has ever denied that error exists.hazel_{November 5, 2019
November
11
Nov
5
05
2019
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT}

Vivid, The prior discussion is there, starting with E = Error exists, something which we consider a commonplace fact. What gets interesting is when we try its denial, ~E. This, retranslated, means it is error to assert E. The attempt to deny E ends up affirming it. E is undeniably true. It is self-evident. Going a step further, we can try the compound E AND ~E:
2: Let us now attempt a conjunction, to draw the force of the Josiah Royce proposition, E, out more formally: C = { E AND ~E } 3: We have here mutually exclusive, opposed and exhaustive claims that address the real world joined together in a way that tries to say both are so. 4: Common sense, based on wide experience and our sense of how things are and can or cannot be -- to be further analysed below, yielding three key first principles of right reason -- tells us that, instead: (a) this conjunction C = { E AND ~E } must be false (so that the CONJUNCTION is a definite case of an error . . . i.e. the set that collects errors is necessarily non-empty), and that (b) its falsity being relevant to one of the claims, (c) we may readily identify that the false one is ~E. Which means: ______________________________________ (d) E is true and is undeniably true. (On pain of a breach of common sense.) 5: So, E is true, is known to be true once we understand it and is undeniably true on pain of patent -- obvious, hard to deny -- self contradiction. 6: It is therefore self evident.
The attempt to deny E is in a lot of trouble. Not, that we won't have people clinging to absurdity. KFkairosfocus_{November 5, 2019
November
11
Nov
5
05
2019
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT}

UB Yep its turtles ( chemical reactions) all the way down. Vividvividbleau_{November 5, 2019
November
11
Nov
5
05
2019
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT}

KF “5: So, E is true, is known to be true once we understand it and is undeniably true on pain of patent — obvious, hard to deny — self contradiction.” KF if one rejects the above then all that follows falls as well. It may well be worth pausing and isolating the discussion on this pivotal point. “ 5: So, E is true, is known to be true once we understand it and is undeniably true on pain of patent — obvious, hard to deny — self contradiction.” Until you can get agreement on this point everything else is moot and I would counsel that you stay on this point before moving on to anything else that follows. JMO Vividvividbleau_{November 5, 2019
November
11
Nov
5
05
2019
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT}

#563 The computer you are typing your messages through is "just chemical reactions" too.Upright BiPed_{November 5, 2019
November
11
Nov
5
05
2019
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

It's worth remembering that calling it a genetic "code", "translation" etc are metaphors. In reality it's just chemical reactions.DerekDiMarco_{November 5, 2019
November
11
Nov
5
05
2019
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT}

Briefly stepping in to support Ed's question at 552. It is entirely possible that some intelligent component of the universe is a cause behind the genetic code and the development of life forms, but yet has no more interest in our behavior than it does with the behavior of bacteria or lions or any other particular life form. In this case, it would have nothing to do with the objectivity of morals.hazel_{November 5, 2019
November
11
Nov
5
05
2019
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT}

University of Berkeley law professor, Philip Johnson, who passed away earlier this week made this observation in an article he wrote 20 years ago:
Even an extreme scientific materialist such as Dawkins has to acknowledge that there is such a thing as moral knowledge, and that it cannot come from science because we cannot derive “ought” from “is.” To avoid allowing the selfish genes to set the moral agenda, Dawkins states a basic proposition that he apparently regards as self-evident—essentially the Golden Rule—and then hastily drops the subject because to develop that line of thought further would undermine his whole project. Just by hinting at the existence of moral knowledge, Dawkins gives us reason to doubt that we actually do live in a world ruled by gangster genes. In such a world honest teachers (if there were any) would be telling their students that a pretense of morality is merely a stratagem by which one gangster induces others to enter into temporary alliances, or cozens some gullible victim to lower his guard.
https://www.firstthings.com/article/1999/11/in-defense-of-natural-law In other words, if moral obligation or “ought” does not really exist then so-called morality is just a pretense where selfish people try to con and manipulate others to get what they want. Of course, none of this bodes well for the weak and afflicted in society, who are told they are oppressed only to be exploited by so-called social justice activist who are promising to liberate them. The oppressed end up being pawns in a ruthless and unprincipled power struggle.john_a_designer_{November 5, 2019
November
11
Nov
5
05
2019
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT}

EG, It was long since established that error exists. Further, I have shown that this is undeniably true and so serious consequences follow, as my linked discussion long since laid out:
5: So, E is true, is known to be true once we understand it and is undeniably true on pain of patent -- obvious, hard to deny -- self contradiction. 6: It is therefore self evident. 7: It is warranted as reliably true, indeed to demonstrative certainty. 8: Where, E refers to the real world of things as such. 9: It is a case of absolute, objective, certainly known truth; a case of certain knowledge. "Justified, true belief," nothing less. 10: It is also a matter of widely observed fact -- starting with our first school exercises with sums and visions of red X's -- confirming the accuracy of a particular consensus of experience. 11: So, here we have a certainly known case of truth existing as that which accurately refers to reality. 12: Also, a case of knowledge existing as warranted, credibly true beliefs, in this case to certainty. 13: Our ability to access truth and knowledge about the real, extra-mental world by experience, reasoning and observation is confirmed in at least one pivotal case. 14: Contemporary worldviews — their name is Legion — that would deny, deride or dismiss such [including the point that there are such things as self evident truths that relate to the real world], are thence shown to be factually inadequate and incoherent. They are unable to explain reality. 15: Such worldviews are, as a bloc, falsified by this one key point. They are unreasonable. (And yes, I know this may be hard to accept, but if your favoured system contradicts soundly established facts and/or truths, it is seriously defective.) 16: Of course the truth in question is particularly humbling and a warning on the limits of our knowledge and the gap between belief and truth or even ability to formulate a logical assertion and truth. 17: So, we need to be humble, and — contrary to assertions about how insisting on such objectivity manifests "arrogance" and potentially oppressive "intolerance" – the first principles of right reason (implicit in the above, to be drawn out below) allow us to humbly, honestly test our views so that we can identify when we have gone off the rails and to in at least some cases confirm when our confidence is well grounded.
The swept away worldviews include subjectivism, relativism and emotivism. Objective knowledge, our access to such and even to certainly known truth has been demonstrated by key case study. Where self-evident truth is included, thus truth and its knowability in certain cases. Wikipedia, confessing against known biases and agendas, per principle of embarrassment:
Objectivity is a philosophical concept of being true independently from individual subjectivity caused by perception, emotions, or imagination. A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject. Scientific objectivity [--> they have to push in their agenda!] refers to the ability to judge without partiality or external influence, sometimes used synonymously with neutrality.
That is, objective truths are a form of knowledge or at least the potentially knowable. That is, they may be well warranted as credibly true and reliable, regardless of the disagreement or agendas of any party. Such certainty or reliability are not utterly certain in all cases, that is, knowledge here is in the soft form, potentially fallible sense in the main. There are cases where knowledge is to utter certainty but those are special cases. Such soft or weak form knowledge and warrant are what is meant when one speaks of objective truth. Where, Science is usually regarded as enfolding a body of knowledge but its degree of warrant cannot even rise to moral certainty, especially on the explanatory construct side. Reliability of well tested laws and facts is far more certain. So, we go here again -- this sort of thing was discussed months ago but the usual suspects were impatient of epistemological and logic of being explorations. The consequences above are unsurprising in that light. Maybe, they can wake up from their dogmatic slumbers? In that context, there is nothing to give us any reason to suddenly rehabilitate subjectivism, relativism, emotivism etc in looking at truth, warrant and knowledge regarding first principles and duties of right reason or broader morality. The ultra-modernist emperor is parading around without a stitch on him. Now, moral truths would accurately describe moral realities, i.e. logic of being and reality of abstracta are involved. Thus the value of the test case of Mathematics that objectors -- predictably -- were dismissive of or studiously ignored a la Wilson's evil counsels; above. All are connected to logic of being and to the principle of distinct identity. If one claims that there are no objective moral truths one implies adequate warrant is being claimed. But were such so, that too would be a moral truth. It cuts its own throat. There is no reason to deny the reality of moral truths and knowledge, certainly not on grounds of disagreement. The objectors disagreed with Galileo, that did not ground a conclusion that there were no knowable facts on the sun as centre of the solar system. Mind you, strictly, empirical observations took 100 - 300 years beyond Galileo's time. That error and disputes exist does not warrant that knowable truth on a subject -- even, self-evident truth -- does not exist. Our ignorance, bias, ill-will, hostility and debasement of mind can cloud our ability to learn and respond to warrant. Indeed, such clouding can lead us to cling to the most patent absurdities. The fact is, there are first principles and duties of right reason which are inescapable; the latter being moral truths known to certainty that govern our rationality. Duties to truth, right reason, prudence (so, warrant), sound conscience, fairness, justice etc are not about to go away simply because some object and/or are clouded in their thinking. As attempted objections above invariably demonstrated, to try to make objections depends implicitly on said principles and duties. Where, subjectivism, relativism and emotivism don't even make it to the starting gates. Time for mindset change. KFkairosfocus_{November 5, 2019
November
11
Nov
5
05
2019
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT}

Ed George:
We know the power of indoctrination, repetition, experience, feedback, etc. on our emotions and our behaviour. These, along with the human ability to reason and project outcomes of actions (although fallibly) can easily explain our sense of morality and the values that we hold.
And dogs that eat homework can easily explain missing assignments. :roll:
We don’t have to depend on some poorly defined and difficult to interpret “objective” values to guide us.
But poorly defined and arbitrary subjective values do just fine. Got it.ET_{November 5, 2019
November
11
Nov
5
05
2019
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT}

. --"No, that is just the observations that can point us in areas to research..." uh-huh --"We know the power of indoctrination, repetition, experience, feedback, etc. on our emotions and our behavior..." uh-huh ... uh-huh --"These, along with the human ability to reason and project outcomes of actions..." She needs a consensus to know for certain that its valid, doesn't she -- it could be otherwise, right?Upright BiPed_{November 5, 2019
November
11
Nov
5
05
2019
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT}

VB
Here is the duck duck guys argument in a nutshell. People and cultures disagree about morality therefore no objective moral standard exists. Compelling isn’t it?
No, that is just the observations that can point us in areas to research. We know the power of indoctrination, repetition, experience, feedback, etc. on our emotions and our behaviour. These, along with the human ability to reason and project outcomes of actions (although fallibly) can easily explain our sense of morality and the values that we hold. We don't have to depend on some poorly defined and difficult to interpret "objective" values to guide us. Although, this is not to say that objective "facts" are not important in the moral values we establish for ourselves. I think that they are very important. Just that our moral values are our subjective interpretations/conclusions of these objective "facts" influenced by all of the things mentioned above, not that the moral values are objectively true in and of themselves. Duck-Duck guyEd George_{November 5, 2019
November
11
Nov
5
05
2019
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT}

BO'H (& attn EG et al): Have you ever had to compose and effect designs that had to physically work, or to compose a computer program of any complexity? I will assume, yes. You therefore know that such are very finicky about having the right parts, properly arranged and coupled, i.e. they are fine tuned. Indeed, functionally specific, complex organisation and/or associated information turns on coherent, sufficiently complex fine tuning. Where, semiotic, linguistic, code based systems -- including sufficiently complex text in English, computer code, telecommunications code and DNA -- are a case in point. Thus, cosmological fine tuning of the physics and circumstances of the observed cosmos (the only actually observed cosmos as cosmology will readily acknowledge) is of a piece with that which we find in technological systems (including code-using ones) and in the world of life. Indeed, it is noted that the complex fine tuning of our observed cosmos sets it to an operating point that seems deeply isolated in the configuration space of relevant parameters, and is conducive to C-chemistry, aqueous medium cell based life. All of that strongly points to intelligently directed configuration -- aka, design -- as best, empirically and analytically warranted explanation. If you can tell us an actually observed cause of FSCO/I beyond 500 - 1,000 bits other than this, kindly let us know: _______ and give us the actually observed cases __________ and the basis for their documented credibility _______ . (There are trillions of observed cases of such FSCO/I by design.) Now, it so happens that UB was answering a specific claim by giving a counter-challenge to the duck-like argument. It is now quite clear that the argument is yet another case of logic with a swivel; used to advantage but turned away when it might be inconvenient. The duck-like argument above was patently less than serious. But if a logical principle is not fallacious, it will hold consistently and will be respected equally consistently. However, there is a connexion to the issues at focus of the discussion and the OP. For, it turns out that we are arguing and are implicitly relying on the inescapability of first principles and duties of right reason. This points to built in, natural law that governs our intelligent life, governing rationality through both logical-factual and moral principles constituting the core of the law of our morally governed nature. A law that by that inescapability is self-evident and necessarily true on pain of patent absurdity on attempted denial. For example the duck argument is an appeal to observability of defining, identifying characteristics of entities, concrete or abstract. Once sufficiently identified, key archetypes of a given distinct type of being point to its identity. Equally, it turns on our known duties to truth, right reason, prudence [so, warrant], sound conscience, fairness and justice etc. These are self-evident, true, certain in that truth (as inescapable) thus well warranted, knowable, known and objective. Consequently, relativism, subjectivism and emotivism fail and are swept away as untenable worldview premises. Accordingly, we need to undergo mindset change (I am looking at a local campaign Tee shirt). KFkairosfocus_{November 5, 2019
November
11
Nov
5
05
2019
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT}

UB The “duck duck guy” love it. Here is the duck duck guys argument in a nutshell. People and cultures disagree about morality therefore no objective moral standard exists. Compelling isn’t it? Vividvividbleau_{November 5, 2019
November
11
Nov
5
05
2019
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT}

Ed George:
I agree. When something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and swims like a duck, we have no problem concluding that it is a duck.
Except for the fact that you don't appear to know what a duck is. It is a safe bet that you throw bread crumbs to decoys and wonder why they don't eat them.ET_{November 5, 2019
November
11
Nov
5
05
2019
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT}

. cha-ching On cue, like clockwork. Regale us again Ed - how enlightened you are.Upright BiPed_{November 5, 2019
November
11
Nov
5
05
2019
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT}

What does fine tuning have to do with “quiescent non-dynamic memory tokens, organized in a linear reading-frame code”?
And what does "quiescent non-dynamic memory tokens, organized in a linear reading-frame code" have to do with objective vs subjective morality? Inquiring minds want to know.Ed George_{November 5, 2019
November
11
Nov
5
05
2019
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT}

According to Wikipedia an internet troll is, “a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses[2] and normalizing tangential discussion,[3] whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain…” I can think of a number of people on this site who fit that description. However, I am not going to name any names. Trolls are typically people looking for an excuse to be offended because that gives them the excuse to be disruptive under the pretense they are defending themselves. So-called patience does not do any good with trolls because they are people motivated by resentment and totally lacking in any kind of good will. (By the way, ethical values like “good will” or “good faith” lack meaning unless there is some kind of real interpersonal, or transcendent, obligation. Furthermore, morality doesn’t make any sense without such obligations. ) How can we even begin to trust such people unless they committed to ethical and intellectual honesty and respect for their fellow man? If I were going to start my own blog. (Which I may do someday.) I would set out set of very simple and basic rules that everyone must follow. Rule #1 would be, to refute an argument you must make an argument. Just stating your opinion or belief is not making an argument and is not sufficient to prove anything. Rule #2: If you are going to disagree with my (or our) world view you must willing to present and defend your own world view. If you are not going to present a logical alternative why would anyone want to change their minds? Rule #3: You do not have the right to be disrespectful or disruptive. This is unfair to people who are willing to abide by the rules. Rule #4: When challenged you must be open and honest about your motives for being here. Rule #5: You must agree to the above rules before you are allowed to actively participate on this site. There it is. A simple, succinct and easy to understand set of rules. Of course, rules don’t do any good unless they are strictly and fairly enforced.john_a_designer_{November 5, 2019
November
11
Nov
5
05
2019
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT}

kf @ 546 -
However, sometines a patient, indirect approach is best.
How about trying a patient direct approach? I still don't know how cosmology applies to the specific question I repeated in 544. What does fine tuning have to do with “quiescent non-dynamic memory tokens, organized in a linear reading-frame code”? You haven't made the link, so it's impossible to understand what you're getting at.Bob O'H_{November 5, 2019
November
11
Nov
5
05
2019
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT}

BR, these are precisely why we need to highlight the self-evident, inescapable truth of the first principles and first duties of right reason. And, because these are directly connected to the true nature of law -- that it is first built into us through said first principles and duties -- then it will help us correct the debasement of law through legal positivism and its invited nihilism. But that will cut clean across radical agendas that are now pushing for power with increasing force. We must recognise that power not tamed by demonstrated commitment to the first principles and duties of reason is exceedingly dangerous, indeed it is the power of misanthropy. And yes, the echo of Robespierre et al is quite deliberate and deserved. It is high time that we wake up to our peril as a civilisation. Which is exactly what AG barr and Rabbi Lapin highlighted. KF PS: Notice, where I then take the principles we have discussed:
7] Seventh, in light of the above, even the weakest and most voiceless of us thus has a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of fulfillment of one’s sense of what s/he ought to be (“happiness”). This includes the young child, the unborn and more. (We see here the concept that rights are binding moral expectations of others to provide respect in regards to us because of our inherent status as human beings, members of the community of valuable neighbours. Where also who is my neighbour was forever answered by the parable of the Good Samaritan. Likewise, there can be no right to demand of or compel my neighbour that s/he upholds me and enables me in the wrong — including under false colour of law through lawfare. To justly claim a right, one must first be in the right.) 8] Eighth, like unto the seventh, such may only be circumscribed or limited for good cause. Such as, reciprocal obligation to cherish and not harm neighbour of equal, equally valuable nature in community and in the wider world of the common brotherhood of humanity. 9] Ninth, this is the context in which it becomes self evidently wrong, wicked and evil to kidnap, sexually torture and murder a young child or the like as concrete cases in point that show that might and/or manipulation do not make ‘right,’ ‘truth,’ ‘worth,’ ‘justice,’ ‘fairness,’ ‘law’ etc. That is, anything that expresses or implies the nihilist’s credo is morally absurd. 10] Tenth, this entails that in civil society with government, justice is a principal task of legitimate government. In short, nihilistic will to power untempered by the primacy of justice is its own refutation in any type of state. Where, justice is the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities. Thus also, 11] Eleventh, that government is and ought to be subject to audit, reformation and if necessary replacement should it fail sufficiently badly and incorrigibly.
(NB: This is a requisite of accountability for justice, and the suggestion or implication of some views across time, that government can reasonably be unaccountable to the governed, is its own refutation, reflecting -- again -- nihilistic will to power; which is automatically absurd. This truth involves the issue that finite, fallible, morally struggling men acting as civil authorities in the face of changing times and situations as well as in the face of the tendency of power to corrupt, need to be open to remonstrance and reformation -- or if they become resistant to reasonable appeal, there must be effective means of replacement. Hence, the principle that the general election is an insitutionalised regular solemn assembly of the people for audit and reform or if needs be replacement of government gone bad. But this is by no means an endorsement of the notion that a manipulated mob bent on a march of folly has a right to do as it pleases.)
12] Twelfth, the attempt to deny or dismiss such a general framework of moral governance invariably lands in shipwreck of incoherence and absurdity. As, has been seen in outline. But that does not mean that the attempt is not going to be made, so there is a mutual obligation of frank and fair correction and restraint of evil.
Remember, this is what in the end our objectors are opposed to. Also, we must insist that "To justly claim a right, one must first be in the right."kairosfocus_{November 5, 2019
November
11
Nov
5
05
2019
03:49 AM
3
03
49
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus @ 546 We are dealing with people that do not value truth. They believe the ends justify the means. Without truth, there can be no reason. They are lead by emotions that blind them to logical thought. Emotion will always be at odds with reason.BobRyan_{November 5, 2019
November
11
Nov
5
05
2019
01:52 AM
1
01
52
AM
PDT}

BO'H: I linked a paper by a research astrophysicist which draws out key aspects of fine tuning; and an entire textbook on cosmology that manifestly documents the scope of cosmology and linked observations. An elaboration of such not being germane to this thread, we can take it that your bluff has been called.Besides, even that was distractive, UB's point on the nature and causal context of communication systems stands and the if it walks like a duck talking point has duly got a dose of 12 ga shot, then was plucked, cleaned, roasted and served for dinner. KF PS: BTW, the whole point of the duck argument is that it appeals -- inescapably as usual -- to first principles and duties of reason. Here, the principle of identity tied to being open to cumulative evidence and warrant (which is a manifestation of duties to truth, right reason, prudence, sound conscience and fairness). Again and again, the inescapability is inadvertently exemplified by objectors, precisely as expected:
We may elaborate on Paul, Locke, Hooker and Aristotle, laying out several manifestly evident and historically widely acknowledged core moral principles for which the attempted denial is instantly and patently absurd for most people -- that is, they are arguably self-evident (thus, warranted and objective) moral truths; not just optional opinions. So also, it is not only possible to
(a) be in demonstrable moral error, but also (b) there is hope that such moral errors can be corrected by appealing to manifestly sound core principles of the natural moral law. Thus, (c) we can now see that a core of law is built into moral government of our responsible, rational freedom (through our known, inescapable duties to truth, right reason, prudence [including, warrant], sound conscience, neighbourliness [thus, the golden rule], fairness & justice, etc). On these, (d) we may frame just civil law as comporting with that built-in law of our morally governed nature, towards upholding and defending the civil peace of justice through sound government.
For instance: 1] The first self evident moral truth is that we are inescapably under the government of ought.
(This is manifest in even an objector's implication in the questions, challenges and arguments that s/he would advance, that we are in the wrong and there is something to be avoided about that. That is, even the objector inadvertently implies that we OUGHT to do, think, aim for and say the right. Not even the hyperskeptical objector can escape this truth. Patent absurdity on attempted denial. Expanding slightly: our rational, responsible intelligent behaviour is inescapably under the moral government of known duties to truth, to right reason, to prudence [so to warrant], to sound conscience, to neighbourliness [thus, the Golden Rule], to fairness and justice, etc. Thus, we find morally rooted law built into our morally governed nature, even for our intellectual life. Thus, too, the civil law extends what is already built in, to our social circumstances, turning on issues of prudence, justice and mutual duties; if it is to be legitimate. Notice, this is itself a theory on what law is or at least should be. And yes, all of this is fraught with implications for the roots of reality.)
2] Second self evident truth, we discern that some things are right and others are wrong by a compass-sense we term conscience which guides our thought. (Again, objectors depend on a sense of guilt/ urgency to be right not wrong on our part to give their points persuasive force. See what would be undermined should conscience be deadened or dismissed universally? Sawing off the branch on which we all must sit.) 3] Third, were this sense of conscience and linked sense that we can make responsibly free, rational decisions to be a delusion, we would at once descend into a status of grand delusion in which there is no good ground for confidence in our self-understanding. That is, we look at an infinite regress of Plato’s cave worlds: once such a principle of grand global delusion is injected, there is no firewall so the perception of level one delusion is subject to the same issue, and this level two perception too, ad infinitum; landing in patent absurdity. 4] Fourth, we are objectively under obligation of OUGHT. That is, despite any particular person’s (or group’s or august council’s or majority’s) wishes or claims to the contrary, such obligation credibly holds to moral certainty. That is, it would be irresponsible, foolish and unwise for us to act and try to live otherwise. 5] Fifth, this cumulative framework of moral government under OUGHT is the basis for the manifest core principles of the natural moral law under which we find ourselves obligated to the right the good, the true etc. Where also, patently, we struggle to live up to what we acknowledge or imply we ought to do.
Of course, that points to the real problem, clinging to an ideology, its agendas and underlying worldview despite its self-falsifying nature, here evo mat scientism, cultural marxism and co:
6] Sixth, this means we live in a world in which being under core, generally understood principles of natural moral law is coherent and factually adequate, thus calling for a world-understanding in which OUGHT is properly grounded at root level. (Thus worldviews that can soundly meet this test are the only truly viable ones. if a worldview does not have in it a world-root level IS that can simultaneously ground OUGHT, it fails decisively.*)
Going forward, we can freely use what has been shown.kairosfocus_{November 5, 2019
November
11
Nov
5
05
2019
01:47 AM
1
01
47
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 25 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply