tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post2955776524628795153..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: Open letter to Chris StedmanPhil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger106125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-83201638134666068342011-03-02T20:22:20.656-08:002011-03-02T20:22:20.656-08:00Zach:
1. If you are not a humanist, you are at le...Zach:<br /><br />1. If you are not a humanist, you are at least advocating for humanism. Let's not quibble, please.<br /><br />2. One of the great humanists is Desiderius Erasmus, the man credited with assembling the Textus Receptus -- the Greek New Testament. He stands at the back end of the Renaissance, which spanned from the 14th to the 17th century. Humanism arose with the Renaissance, and caused the philosophical consequences we see as the Enlightenment. Again: this is history, not poetry. It is what it is unless a nice story is more important than the order of events.<br /><br />3. I like it that you dismiss chronology as somehow related to causality. It points to your commitments.<br /><br />4. It's not a common Christian notion: it's a well-established fact. If we accept the Feudal Europe ran from about the 8th century onward into the Renaissance, it was based on the law of Charlemagne -- and the political reasoning behind it was substantiated by the theological notion of the Great Chain of Being. They are not unrelated, and they are not somehow in separate containers. It is because of the influence of Christian cosmology and ethical reasoning that the west developed the political and social ethics we see.<br /><br />5. It is quite a big deal philosophically if there is no god. But relative to what version of history you adopt, it is of no consequence that you adopt a false view of history if there is no god. Falsehood is a value judgment without any metaphysical consequence if things just happen and there is no use for them apart from subjective use. You could adopt a history in which you are the direct descendent of Kubla Khan if it made your life more enjoyable -- who could impress you to do otherwise?<br /><br />6. The point is actually mine, and two-fold:<br />6a - you have a view of history which does not correlate with the facts.<br />6b - that view causes you to dismiss other facts as irrelevant.<br />If these don't matter to you (they should, but only because facts are the property of God), then please continue. If they do matter to you, you should think about why they matter.<br /><br />7. There are no arguments substantiating you as a person, yet I'm willing to accept that you're on good faith. I'm willing to grant that you are not a function of the Google mainframes or an imaginary thing I have dreamed up. Given that Jesus was a real person, the least you can do is consider that his real life provides more to answer the question of God than most philosophy classes can attempt to discount.<br /><br />And with that, I'm done for the night. Please email me at frank@iturk.com if you are interested in a further discussion.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-3523485288680280612011-03-02T19:43:13.314-08:002011-03-02T19:43:13.314-08:00Since secular humanism which you inherit today... ...<i>Since secular humanism which you inherit today... </i><br />I am not a Humanist, Frank, though Chris Stedman is. <br /><br /><i>... and which was greatly conceived of in the Renaissance</i><br />Surely, the flowering of contemporary atheistic Humanism was in the Enlightenment and the Republic of Letters, quite a bit after the Renaissance?<br /><br />As for myself, my own worldview quite resembles the secular stoicism I read of in histories of ancient Greece. This is a resemblance, but not a family one; it is not as if I read De Rerum Natura and found myself a converted Lucretiaist.<br /><br /><i>... proceeds from a Christian context </i><br />Well, in a chronological sense, I can agree the many of the ideological and culture features of The World after the appearance of Christianity, where partially shaped by the influence of Christianity. But I could say the same about Christianity itself, in which we can identify any number of features which follow from precursor religious and cultural practices. I'm not sure if the claim is that Christianity somehow popped into the flow of history without announcement... I like most reasonable people (I should think) acknowledge that Christianity is as much a cause and consequence of history as any other movement. <br /><br /><i>... (you know: it's unfound in Chinese history; it's unfound in the history of the Americas prior to the arrival of Europeans; it's not an African continental movement)...</i><br />I'm aware of historical texts, traditions, and teachings from all of these cultures which resemble in whole or part some of the practices in contemporary manifestations of secularism, atheism, and Humanism. <br /><br />If I may ask; is it a common notion among Christians that "Western Civilization" is more a product of the Christianity of the ancient Levant, than of, say, medieval Europe feudalism, or civic and social models from the Near East, or the mercantile practices of early modern sea powers (and so on)?<br /><br /><i>I suggest you have somehow missed the necessary causality. You have invented a history for it.</i><br />I don't know what causality you explained; nor what history I've described. Without wanting to seem rancorous, I'd like to point out that such claims seem to suffer the weakness of illusory explanatory depth...<br /><br /><i>If there is no god, that's no big deal.</i><br />Quite a big deal, no? I certainly take the absence of supernatural powers in the world, as a serious call to take responsibility for our lives, and ownership of our actions.<br /><br /><i>You can adopt any historical story you want.</i><br />This may be someone else's point; it is not my position.<br /><br /><i>If there is a God who created and sustains history... </i><br />We don't have to be satisfied with "if," though. We are free to ask, "whether," and then consider the arguments. I've considered many, and not found them persuasive. Or rather, I've discovered that there are many good reasons to claim belief in a god or gods... however, I've found eventually that none of them are good enough to warrant belief.<br /><br /><i>... though, maybe what actually happened matters -- especially if you're borrowing from him without proper attribution.</i><br />I truly don't know what you might mean by this. If I've stated any moral or historical claims in this discussion thread, I can't imagine that any of them are not much earlier than, say, the Gospels were written.Zachary Boshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07381974131762307270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-57264401337999604502011-03-02T19:29:51.011-08:002011-03-02T19:29:51.011-08:00Zach:
Since secular humanism which you inherit to...Zach:<br /><br />Since secular humanism which you inherit today, and which was greatly conceived of in the Renaissance, proceeds from a Christian context (you know: it's unfound in Chinese history; it's unfound in the history of the Americas prior to the arrival of Europeans; it's not an African continental movement), I suggest you have somehow missed the necessary causality. You have invented a history for it.<br /><br />If there is no god, that's no big deal. You can adopt any historical story you want. If there is a God who created and sustains history, though, maybe what actually happened matters -- especially if you're borrowing from him without proper attribution.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-62775176764672596222011-03-02T19:16:37.088-08:002011-03-02T19:16:37.088-08:00St. Lee:
YOU READ MY POST!
AHA!St. Lee:<br /><br />YOU READ MY POST!<br /><br />AHA!FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-34736009823853525222011-03-02T18:44:13.726-08:002011-03-02T18:44:13.726-08:00Lee, I'm not so nice or so gentle that I won&#...Lee, I'm not so nice or so gentle that I won't call you on your condescension. There's no king in the United States, either; but we have laws. Is that proof or disproof of your point?<br /><br />I'm being civil, frank, and responsive. If I seem persistent here in this discussion, and everywhere else, online and in real life where I push these questions and issues, it's because I give a damn about what people believe and how that affects the way they act. <br /><br />This idea that I only do what's right in my own eyes, is half right: at the end of the day, I'm accountable to my conscience, of course. But I don't have any delusions about it -- I also have to account for my actions in the eyes of the people around me. Everyone votes, and raises children, and influences the commonweal in a thousand other ways. So it's my business what they do, and I'm their business, like I'm yours, you're mine, everybody is everybody's. We're in it together.<br /><br />Look, I don't think you're "a repulsive sinner" (in the terms you use on your blog, to describe people in general). So what is getting your ire up? Do I seem disrespectful, uninformed? Or is it the case that you don't like the attention I'm paying to the grounds for your beliefs? Before I say anything else, let me say this: don't worry about it. You've been getting along this far without any god -- your beliefs in that nonexistent god notwithstanding -- and we're all going to keep going on without one. If I knew you in the real world, you'd probably find me pleasant, and alright. I'd ask you about good new market panhead models (even though, yeah, I can't afford one), and talk about growing up around motorcycles. We'd grab a beer, or if you're clean and sober, a coke. If you couldn't take me on those terms, as a person -- like you seem unable to take me on the terms I'm offering here, honesty and good will -- then, man, back it up and check out. The adults are talking.Zachary Boshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07381974131762307270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-43481986566691173272011-03-02T18:24:17.578-08:002011-03-02T18:24:17.578-08:00The evidence and the "consensus of experts&qu...<i>The evidence and the "consensus of experts" are not in accord with each other.</i><br />That is not accurate, as far as I know. I'll acknowledge that there are some people who hold Ph.Ds, who have advanced critiques of evolutionary theory. I don't find any of the criticisms that I've seen persuasive. I appreciate your frankness in bringing up this minority view.<br /><br /><i>Now, if people selectively choose what they will call evidence, then they might be able to work evolution out.</i><br />Do you care to share a cogent example of how some relevant body of evidence, which would seem not to support the conclusions of the present understanding of the evolution of species, has been selectively excluded?<br /><br /><i>The thing is, there is a vast amount of evidence that contradicts evolution.</i><br />I'm rather more familiar with the apologist and Creationist critiques of evolution than I am with many other subjects. I'm aware of the kinds of arguments which are mustered against evolutionary theory -- and the kinds of data they mean to implicate as contradicting that theory -- but, again, I don't know of any persuasive arguments along these lines. If there is some other kind of evidence, I'm glad to consider it with you. I've made rather a commitment in this comment thread to keeping up with the various threads of discussion, so, why stop now.<br /><br /><i>In fact, Darwin made his own statements about certain things that would invalidate his "theories" and we have come to said things in our day and age. Namely, we are able to see more complicated, detailed, smaller parts of organisms than he was able to observe...especially a human cell, which if you look at just one part of a cell you can see all of the detail design that is involved. And when one studies the complexities of the workings of the various organisms (from single-cell all the way up to humans), it becomes abundantly clear that evolution is but a myth.</i><br />I'm familiar with the concept of intelligent design from Behe and others, but don't find it persuasive. Just to nod at three more frequently used examples, I'm conversant with analyses of the arguments based on irreducible complexity or inherent design in the bacterial flagellum, the blood clotting system, and the eye, all of which have persuaded me that those arguments don't hold water. <br /><br />I've entered into discussion about these topics before, and it has been most productive when both parties are familiar with the subject. If you care to discuss it more deeply, perhaps we could agree that if the other party supplies a primary source article, as a source of data supporting one interpretation or another, we might expect that the article be read before the conversation proceeds? No one gains in understanding if the parties to the conversation are simply exchanging sound bites and received 'wisdom' that whizzes past the other's ear (or through the other's head!). <br /><br /><i>Also, let me add this. The probability for the Earth to have wound up in the exact position it is in line with the rest of the planets and the sun, if it happened randomly, is one billionth of one billionth. </i><br />I don't know what you might mean here; the exact position given what origin? Alignment with what solar bodies, along with curve? I don't know what figures you may have been crunching in order to obtain this figure.<br /><br /><i>would recommend reading "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist", by Norman Geisler, for a more thorogh presentation of the evidence.</i><br />I've read it -- in view of the guideline I propose above, then, we can proceed with the conversation, trusting that we are both familiar with that book's contents. I should say that I didn't find Geisler's reasoning persuasive (perhaps this is not a surprise to you).Zachary Boshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07381974131762307270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-91518784677333011562011-03-02T18:21:05.673-08:002011-03-02T18:21:05.673-08:00OK, time to fess up Frank. You brought in a "...OK, time to fess up Frank. You brought in a "ringer" to show us all what its going to be like to deal with the new kinder, gentler atheist, didn't you?<br /><br />Despite all the grandiose words used to mask the talking in circles, it all boils down to this: "In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes."<br /><br />And if I may paraphrase: In these days there is no God in men's lives, so every man does that which is right in his own eyes.St. Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01238671101561121436noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-987996822175913172011-03-02T18:10:43.341-08:002011-03-02T18:10:43.341-08:00Zachary,
The evidence and the "consensus of ...Zachary,<br /><br />The evidence and the "consensus of experts" are not in accord with each other. Now, if people selectively choose what they will call evidence, then they <b><i>might</i></b> be able to work evolution out. The thing is, there is a <b><i>vast</i></b> amount of evidence that contradicts evolution. In fact, Darwin made his own statements about certain things that would invalidate his "theories" and we have come to said things in our day and age. Namely, we are able to see more complicated, detailed, smaller parts of organisms than he was able to observe...especially a human cell, which if you look at just one part of a cell you can see all of the detail design that is involved. And when one studies the complexities of the workings of the various organisms (from single-cell all the way up to humans), it becomes abundantly clear that evolution is but a myth.<br /><br />Also, let me add this. The probability for the Earth to have wound up in the exact position it is in line with the rest of the planets and the sun, if it happened randomly, is one billionth of one billionth. I would recommend reading "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist", by Norman Geisler, for a more thorogh presentation of the evidence.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13987985549747283669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-55965990540614865702011-03-02T18:10:13.380-08:002011-03-02T18:10:13.380-08:00I thought that that was the whole point of reasoni...<i>I thought that that was the whole point of reasoning: to arrive at truth, conclusions, or (to use your apt term) consensus.</i><br />Some forms of deductive reasoning, yes. And good to keep in mind that while some forms of reasoning will lead to new knowledge, others merely reiterate that the knowledge present in our assumptions is present for valid reason in our conclusions. Then there are the forms of inductive reason which allow us to make informed leaps in judgment; if we didn't open our methods of reasoning to inquiry, we would not be able to avail ourselves of our neighbor's -- especially our dissenting neighbor's -- error-catching analysis. <br /><br /><i>If our reasoning doesn't lead us anywhere, then what's the point?</i><br />That reasoning can only lead to statements of limited scope and tentative grounds, does not mean it can't take us anywhere! It isn't all or nothing -- even a little increase in knowledge is a boon.<br /><br /><i>And again, if you state to your fellow "human entities" what you believe, but have nothing to give it substance or value other than your own rhetoric, then what good are your beliefs?</i><br />To answer in a limited way: By showing how their interests align with mine, and how my proposed actions are more than not likely to bring about commonly desired outcomes, I might attract a consensus of support.<br /><br /><i>If it's not true, then why follow it?</i><br />None of us has such powers of insight that we understand fully the causes and implications of a situation, on first regard. The process of reasoning allows us to sort out likely from unlikely outcomes, given such and such a turn of events. Reasoning isn't just used for identifying truth (though in pure maths, it does do that). It is also used to increase understanding of a set of circumstances -- both the nature of the matter, and the scope and limits of our knowledge of the matter.<br /><br /><i>If it's nothing but your opinion substanced by nothing but your words, then why be persuaded by it?</i><br />To clarify, I wouldn't say that the content of a reasoned discussion about the morally relevant features of a situation, would only be a comparison of respective opinions.Zachary Boshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07381974131762307270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-65601295905953270662011-03-02T17:16:21.710-08:002011-03-02T17:16:21.710-08:00Zachary Bos:
I hope that your dinner was good!
T...<b>Zachary Bos:</b><br /><br />I hope that your dinner was good!<br /><br />Thank you again for taking the time to answer me. Your following statement struck me:<br /><br />"<i>It would be sophistry if I were to put forth my reasoning, and then with a flourish at the end say: look, I have arrived at this truth.</i>"<br /><br />That's sophistry? I thought that that was the whole point of reasoning: to arrive at truth, conclusions, or (to use your apt term) consensus. If our reasoning doesn't lead us anywhere, then what's the point?<br /><br />And again, if you state to your fellow "human entities" what you believe, but have nothing to give it substance or value other than your own rhetoric, then what good are your beliefs? What power or weight do they have to convince or convict?<br /><br />In short:<br /><br />If it's not true, then why follow it?<br /><br />If it's nothing but your opinion substanced by nothing but your words, then why be persuaded by it?<br /><br />Since you have proven yourself to be a man who takes thinking seriously, I implore you to take some time to ponder these thoughts, as I must be off to dinner as well. Cheers.Halcyonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12264274336322086961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-9972150808012653122011-03-02T15:37:39.491-08:002011-03-02T15:37:39.491-08:00Tom Chantry,
I must have missed something. I would...Tom Chantry,<br />I must have missed something. I would like if you have time to possibly answer any questions I have posed to Frank or update me with what I have missed here:<br /><br />6beachbums@bellsouth.net<br /><br />ThanksBverysharphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10903164338818806414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-46464222347591435292011-03-02T15:33:17.163-08:002011-03-02T15:33:17.163-08:00I believe that the bounds of civility have just be...I believe that the bounds of civility have just been crossed.joelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05811833690725966814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-11769244061047849282011-03-02T15:29:39.356-08:002011-03-02T15:29:39.356-08:00Daniel? Did Dan's mother just arrive at the po...Daniel? Did Dan's mother just arrive at the post.joelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05811833690725966814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-83268880140206449052011-03-02T15:22:25.524-08:002011-03-02T15:22:25.524-08:00Another point is allowing the other person some le...<i>Another point is allowing the other person some leeway to make a point. Compare it to a judge temporarily allowing a line of questioning--"I'll allow it, but get to the point quickly."</i><br /><br />Fair enough. But I'll observe, that rather than simply making his point, Daniel chose repeatedly to response as if I'd been avoiding something. Instead, he might have chosen to simply state his argument as if I had conceded his point for the sake of conversation. For this reason and others, his line of attack (ahem) seemed more rhetorical than conversational. Correct me where I'm wrong, Daniel?Zachary Boshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07381974131762307270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-50964011832620094912011-03-02T15:15:30.280-08:002011-03-02T15:15:30.280-08:00Frank, I think you and I disagree as to why it is ...Frank, I think you and I disagree as to why it is Humanist ethics (in the case of Chris Stedman) agree in such large proportion with Christian ethics; I'm content with the explanation that, since ethical systems are usually implemented by human beings in human conditions, it is the common features of human nature which account for the widespread agreement (across time and culture) among ethical systems.Zachary Boshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07381974131762307270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-83381299519975733742011-03-02T15:13:01.412-08:002011-03-02T15:13:01.412-08:00Zachary,
I think there was a typo in this sentenc...Zachary,<br /><br />I think there was a typo in this sentence: "<i>This would be akin to my observation that it is <b>warranted</b> for you to believe that the apple on my desk is red</i>". You meant to say "unwarranted" there, right?<br /><br />[QUOTE]<i>"I don't see any point to conceding what I am warranting in knowing is wrong, for the sake of conversation."</i>[/QUOTE]<br /><br />The point is communication. Avoiding talking past each other. Coming to a mutual understanding, establishing that you understand the internal logic of the other person's view, even if you fault their assumptions or logic.<br /><br />Another point is allowing the other person some leeway to make a point. Compare it to a judge temporarily allowing a line of questioning--"I'll allow it, but get to the point quickly."<br /><br />Being unwilling to go with the other guy for a moment is sometimes equivalent to being unwilling to listen & find out where they're going with it.Jugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-33594903244402737672011-03-02T15:10:49.131-08:002011-03-02T15:10:49.131-08:00Ah, Halcyon, it would be sophistry if I were to pu...Ah, Halcyon, it would be sophistry if I were to put forth my reasoning, and then with a flourish at the end say: look, I have arrived at this truth. I don't do this. Instead I say, look, neighbors, fellow human entities: these are my goals. What are yours? These are my principles of reasoning, what are yous? And we approach greater consensus through the cultural process of discussion. I say "cultural process," for this doesn't happen often as a discrete exchange among rational people; rather the "discussion" is mediated through cultural norms, laws, mores, etc.).<br /><br />The reason consensus occurs at all is because we for the most part hold a great many goals in common, and follow many of similar principles of reasoning. If all of our goals really were incommensurate... well, that's practically unimaginable. We wouldn't be a social animal, to be sure.Zachary Boshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07381974131762307270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-81198723436016460362011-03-02T15:08:19.526-08:002011-03-02T15:08:19.526-08:00Is someone aping Christian ethics?
Anyone who wan...Is someone aping Christian ethics?<br /><br />Anyone who wants to utilize western values without at least noting that they are foundationally formed by <i>Christian ethical reasoning</i> (let alone the actual 10 commandments) is <i>aping Christian ethics</i>. That is: he is mimicking them, but not actually employing them. He wants all the fruit and none of the tree.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-88565243620360979632011-03-02T15:05:24.379-08:002011-03-02T15:05:24.379-08:00From the train: Halcyon, do you know about the Myt...From the train: Halcyon, do you know about the <a href="http://www.mythsoc.org/" rel="nofollow">Mythopoeic Society</a>?Zachary Boshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07381974131762307270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-46802579979249042512011-03-02T15:04:48.353-08:002011-03-02T15:04:48.353-08:00Zachary Bos:
First, I hope that your dinner was d...<b>Zachary Bos:</b><br /><br />First, I hope that your dinner was delicious. 8^)<br /><br />Second, thank you for your detailed yet concise response. I think I'm beginning to understand your position better.<br /><br />I just have one more question/concern/obnoxious inquiry:<br /><br />If ethics are merely a matter of "taste" (i.e., "de gustibus non disputandum est"), and there value is "relative" to how well you can "persuade" others to your position, then does that not destroy an ethic's power <i>to</i> persuade?<br /><br />Let me rephrase that:<br /><br />If one believes in an objective external standard for ethics (whether or not it actually exists), then they have (at least according to them) grounds <i>to</i> which they can appeal to <i>by</i> which they can prove the "superiority" of their position.<br /><br />However, if ethics have no external grounds to back them up (to give them "value") and all they are left with is mere persuasion between individuals, is that not mere sophistry? Mere lexicographical trickery?<br /><br />In short, what substance does your ethic (e.g., "improvement in the condition and liberty of human life") have other than your own words? If it has nothing else than that, then why should we listen to your ethic at all? <i>Even if you effectively argued your ethical position, that does not mean that it is "true". It just makes it "persuasive".</i><br /><br />I'm asking this because I'm not sure I want to live in a world were morality is fundamentally a matter of "taste". Many people have very <i>bad</i> "taste".<br /><br />Or maybe I'm just being dense. 8^pHalcyonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12264274336322086961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-22897661605540455462011-03-02T14:48:03.552-08:002011-03-02T14:48:03.552-08:00This has been quite an active conversation; I'...This has been quite an active conversation; I'm going to dinner now, but will return to it later. I wouldn't want my silence to be construed as a hostile withdrawal. As Halcyon and others have said, the civility and candor all around is something we should rightly appreciate.Zachary Boshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07381974131762307270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-55245170135805925432011-03-02T14:46:54.363-08:002011-03-02T14:46:54.363-08:00Jugulum, I think your view of things is right. I d...Jugulum, I think your view of things is right. I don't see any point to conceding what I am warranting in knowing is wrong, for the sake of conversation. However, if the Christian worldview was correct, I would still have recourse (pardon my vocabulary of combat!) to objection 1), namely that (via Clifford, Hume, and others) that the warrant for believing IN the Christian worldview is insufficient, though that worldview may be a correct one. <br /><br />This would be akin to my observation that it is warranted for you to believe that the apple on my desk is red (even though it is), since you (being remote from me, and have no access to observe my desk) have no sufficient warrant for such belief. <br /><br />As you say, if Christianity is right, Christians have an objective transcendent standard to appeal to. It is exactly this kind of predicative linkage (the conditioning of IF A --> THEN B) that allows me to consider the system as a whole, that is, as (A+B).Zachary Boshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07381974131762307270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-76253596449309196512011-03-02T14:37:15.715-08:002011-03-02T14:37:15.715-08:00Halcyon, I in turn appreciate the candor and civil...Halcyon, I in turn appreciate the candor and civility generally prevailing here. As I told the teenage roughs last night who were throwing trash onto the tracks while we waited for the train, instead of choosing to respect the public space: "I think we can all do better than that." And thus far in this discussion, we have been doing better! A pleasing thing.<br /><br /><i>I'm gathering from the thread so far that ... they are effectively at your disposal in any discussion.</i><br />That's a fair account of it, yes. To answer your questions:<br /><br /><i>You believe that all moralities are invented by the individual.</i><br />Actually, I'd call them a complex of received wisdom and considered revisions, akin to the way language is constructed. No one individual concocts her own lexicon and grammar...<br /><br /><i>Consequently, you believe that no two moralities are ethically superior to another.</i><br />I think relative value (superior as against inferior) like ethical value, is about what you can persuade others of. I'm comfortable stating that my ethics are superior to those of typical serial killer, because when I say "superior" I do actually mean, among other things, that a superior ethics much improve the condition and liberty of human life, and may not reduce any human life to an instrument of others' will or pleasure. If someone balks at my claim to having a superior ethics, I hope they'll ask, what do you mean by superior? And I shall tell them; and we will come to a consensus on the meaning of those relative values, or we will not. But if the person responds to my claim by saying, you are wrong, my ethics are superior, or, you are wrong, NO ethics are superior, etc., then we cannot reach consensus: de gustibus non disputandum est. <br /><br /><i>... in order to maintain civil society and order, we ought to persuade others into an ethical consensus. If persuasion is exhausted, then we should use force (as a a last resort).</i><br />Yes, this is accurate.<br /><br /><i>Why should civil society be maintained?</i><br />It tends, more than brutal forms of society, to bring about improvement in the condition and liberty of human life (etc.). Which is an example of my general point: my support of civil society against alternate forms of living, is itself an ethical decision, motivated by my design to bring about my ethical goals and to reason in accordance with my ethical principles. <br /><br /><i>Why ought we persuade first and then force if necessary?</i><br />Only because this is the definition (as I am using it) of a civil or liberal society. <br /><br /><i>How does that work?</i><br />As with all ethical questions, this is exactly the question we must start with. We bring to the table our respective goals; we strive to reach our goals without alienating others by overturning their own agendas; and in a messy way (though hopefully less messy over time), we move forward in a way.<br /><br />Though of course, costs are borne: by the environment, by biodiversity, by depleting resources, by the increase in inequality. Ethics, economics, and ecology, in my way of thinking, are all extensions of a single system of beliefs and actions.Zachary Boshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07381974131762307270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-21483496688522227132011-03-02T14:33:46.735-08:002011-03-02T14:33:46.735-08:00Zachary,
I think the following is a valid paraphr...Zachary,<br /><br />I think the following is a valid paraphrase of Dan's question. Dan can correct me if it's not. "Assuming that the Christian worldview (as I understand it) is correct, do I have valid basis for appealing to a transcendent, objective standard?"<br /><br />Which of the following best paraphrases your response?<br /><br />1.) "No, because even if the Christian worldview is correct, your justification for believing the Christian worldview is inadequate. Therefore you wouldn't be justified in appealing to a transcendent standard, even if it actually exists."<br /><br />2.) "No, because the Christian worldview is wrong."<br /><br />3.) None of the above.<br /><br /><br />I think Dan is reading your response as #2, hence his impatience. (Rejecting the premise of a question doesn't justify answering "no" to the question. It's nonsensical--"Assuming X is true, no, because X is untrue.") That's how I've been reading your comments, too.<br /><br />If you meant #1, then it's a more reasonable answer, on the face of it. But the Christian worldview includes the idea that the Bible is revelation, and is adequate grounds for believing the Christian worldview. So #1 turns out to be another form of #2.<br /><br /><br />I think Dan's point was: "If I'm right, I have an objective transcendent standard to appeal to. If you're right, you don't."Jugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-9993471283468746172011-03-02T14:31:33.988-08:002011-03-02T14:31:33.988-08:00Zac:
'The system in which this abiogenesis oc...Zac:<br /><br />'The system in which this abiogenesis occurred, that is, the environment of the early Earth, was a product of the evolution of the solar system'<br /><br />Perhaps you could humor us by stating what reproducible scientific evidence has lead you to believe in abiogenisis?joelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05811833690725966814noreply@blogger.com