Natural vs. natural vs. natural
One of the most-read essays in the archives at Touchstone is “Bodies of Evidence,” an article about sex and marriage from a couple of years ago by Frederica Mathewes-Green. It’s a fine article, with no surprises in its thesis, but I did come across this refreshing mini-essay-slash-sidebar at the bottom of the article, and I thought I’d share it with you. In it, Mathewes-Green explains the problems of using the word “natural” in arguments to defend, among other things, homosexuality. As in, other mammals show homosexual behaviors, so it must be a natural – i.e., permissible – thing, right?
Let’s differentiate between two meanings of the word natural. The first, and the one I’m using, is “what we can infer from the design of Creation.” The second is “anything that occurs in Nature.” For example, it’s obvious that a person’s teeth are designed to bite and chew food. But, sure, they’ve been used in other ways: There was a time when a boy could impress his pals by using his to pull the cap off a soft-drink bottle.
When we consider other body parts, it’s likewise obvious that penis and vagina are designed to fit together, but they undeniably get used in other ways. Whatever people do with these body parts can be termed “natural” in that second definition, a label that appears to hallow whatever it touches.
But there’s a problem. If “natural” means “anything that happens,” there are absolutely no limits. Anything that anyone can think of doing with his sex organs has to be called natural—not just homosexuality, but pedophilia, necrophilia, rape, or any other thing humans do. A definition that permits the first type of activity but excludes the others can’t do so without acquiring more clauses.
There’s a whole other, and related, usage of the term natural, and that’s the theological usage, as in nature versus grace, in the way Paul uses the term. In this sense, natural means fallen, or corrupt. Quite a different, albeit ironic, denotation of the term in today’s society. But it’s a valuable exercise to consider the word and how it’s used in an argument. Saying, “It’s natural” is license for just about anything these days.




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!








Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top146 Comments to “Natural vs. natural vs. natural”
“Saying, “It’s natural” is license for just about anything these days.”
These days? This has long been the case.
Being “natural” is not the goal of those who seek to be holy. Te original biblical meaning of the word “holy” is “set apart.” Also, the most frequent definition of God in the Bible is that He is “holy” and we are called to emulate that quality.
I realize there are excellent secular arguments against homosexuality and maybe they should be used first with those who have no faith in a holy God, but I still think the primary argumets are faith-based. God made us on purpose to be set apart, unique and special (primarily for Him).
The standard set by animals is not good enough. We have higher moral capacities and a higher calling than that and we were made to pursue that which is higher, and holy.
We are not just natural accidents of nature. God made us intentionally to be “set apart” from the temporal and natural world and to live to the praise of His glory (Eph. 1:6).
Report comment to moderator
provide some evidence supporting your use of ‘natural’ HSK. you constantly ride the ox in search of the ox. Did you not get to join the honor fraternity or something? Bitter about smart people, you are.
your redefinition of natural filtered through the limp sock that is ‘Paul’ doesn’t explain a single thing about reality. Pointing out that other animals engage in homosexuality devastates your argument about ‘unnatural’ so you rely on your a priori redefinition to save your account, appealing that “everything is unnatural”. You are fundamentally dishonest and you certainly must realize it.
Report comment to moderator
“I still think the primary argumets are faith-based”
that’s right, because you don’t have any arguments for the other without reifying the same abstraction.
“We are not just natural accidents of nature”
Burn, Straw Man, Burn!!!!
“God made us intentionally to be “set apart” from the temporal and natural world and to live to the praise of His glory (Eph. 1:6).”
Show that this is so without thumping your bible. You Fail.
Report comment to moderator
Erasmus,
Gay-bashing is natural. Get over it.
Report comment to moderator
Erasmus:
Are you intentionally misreading the original post and Joel Mark’s response or are you simply incapable of understanding what you read?
Your selective quotation from Joel Mark suggests the latter. When you point your finger at fundamental dishonesty four of your fingers are pointing back at you.
Report comment to moderator
4 LOL. that is good.
5 No ken, I think I understand it very well. HSK likes the slipperiness loose definitions allow, and he contorts his arguments using this tactic quite frequently.
Ken do you care to explain how I have misrepresented either Joel Mark or HSK? Is Joels comment not a flaming man of straw and cinders? Rhetorical baggage is about all that you can expect when HSK redefines ‘natural’ to exclude every single thing in the natural world, a priori, as a result of this Magical Fall From Sin (boo!!!!). What sophistry. What intellectual cowardice, to explain the discordance between reality and the world predicted by your a priori religious belief as a result of some invisible unknowable effect that affirms the consequent.
Yawn.
Clearer thinkers will recognize that arguments from scriptural primacy are useless. I think Joel does. A pragmatic empirical argument for your perverted use of the word ‘natural’ would be what I desire to see here. Get cracking.
Report comment to moderator
Too bad this is turning into yet another thread about homosexuality. It had real potential outside of it.
A professor in college, teaching the Odyssey, told us that marriage was about “having someone you can sleep with”–someone who knows you deeply, utterly, that you can bare yourself, soul and body, to in a very special relationship.
I think she had a lot of wisdom.
Report comment to moderator
kimberly it doesn’t have to. the idea behind a depraved reality due to Magick Falling is in a nutshell the distilled lunacy that is the first ingredient in the odious brew of religion. groupthink identity politics are next. Check, Check. Looks like a pilsner!
Report comment to moderator
What is natural is not therefore always ideal or good.
What a profound truth! One we ignore at our own peril
Report comment to moderator
Erasmus is essentially making the metaphysical point of naturalism that human beings do not differ substantially from brutish animals. Consequently their ability to use symbolic logical language and make moral choices doesn’t qualitatively distinguish them from the brutes. Since he bases this view on belief rather than conclusively with any sort of empirical science, he is involved in his own brand of magical sophistry.
Also, Erasmus is somehow weirdly attracted to this Christian blog where he gets off insulting religious folk who for the most part view him for the smug fool that he is.
Report comment to moderator
I’ve thought a lot about these issues. Check out a post
of mine discussing Ed Feser’s opinion on “naturalness.” Feser is one of the foremost natural law bloggers/scholars. I sent this to Andrew Sullivan with whom I sometimes correspond and he put it in his book “The Conservative Soul.”
Bottom line: Key is right that naturalness arguments are problematic in trying to DEFEND homosexual behavior. But, arguably, they are equally problematic in trying to CONDEMN homosexual behavior, unless one is willing to argue that masturbation, contraceptive heterosexual sex, arguably oral sex (at least when not exclusively used to “foster” procreative heterosexual sex) are equally unnatural with homosexuality.
If any married Christians reading this have contracepted sex with their spouses, according to the only internally coherent theory of “naturalness” that can be used to condemn homosexuality (that is “naturalness” that relies solely on reason and not the Bible), you are doing something as “unnatural” as homosexuality.
Report comment to moderator
except there is abundant evidence that animals do just those two things, Solon. honeybees use interpretive dance to communicate information about distance, direction, food quality. dolphins use seaweed as jewelry adornments to advertise their willingness to mate. Your dog knows FOR SURE when it has done something wrong like pee on the rug. If you watch a dog secretly slipping something off of the kitchen counter then look guilty when you surprise him, you will see that your dog is making moral choices.
But that is not the point. I know for a fact that there can be no categorical distinction between humans and the rest of the animals that will hold in every instance. it is a false category you have constructed.
Yet talking empty heads like HSK will ignore all of that with a wave a lily pink palm and claim by fiat that ‘All Of Nature Is Fallen’ so we can’t tell. THAT is bait and switch and self delusion all at the same time.
solon you can view me as a smug fool, all you can do is harrumph about the fine threads on the emperor’s robe and how only ill mannered boors refuse to praise those delicate fibers.
Wanna prove me wrong? Provide me with some actual evidence that humans are different rather than your liver spotted hands waving around while you try to pick my pocket.
When we finally defeat this monumental edifice of stupidity (Teh Fall) then maybe I will disappear from this blog and you guys can get back to Us and Them and Amen Look How Purty That Emperor’s garter belt is what with all them fancy costume jewelry pieces on it.
Report comment to moderator
6 – Erasmus wrote; “Clearer thinkers will recognize that arguments from scriptural primacy are useless. I think Joel does.”
You think wrong, Erasmus. When you speak for yourself, I can disagree. But when you speak for me and what you think I think, then you don’t have a leg to stand on.
Report comment to moderator
Kimberly,
I taught the Odyssey in college too. For Homer and even moreso from throughout Western history, marriage has been seen as much more than “having someone you can sleep with,” no matter how deeply the partners know eachother soul and body.
Marriage has that quality, but it has always also been a community institution, with meaning far beyond the interests of the partners in the marriage. The heritiage-passing functions of family were important to Homer and so were the parenting ramifications.
I hope I did not misunderstand you point, but I just wanted to comment.
Report comment to moderator
sorry joel i was giving you credit for acknowledging that a world exists outside of the funhouse mirror echo chamber you live in. Apologies if you did not wish that to be public, perhaps you should retract your statement about the best arguments.
your scriptural arguments don’t hold water with me, that is the point. And when HSK promotes runs around redefining natural to invoke nonsense like Teh Fall, he is unable to defend that nonsense without invoking his scriptural arguments. This is the deep seat of his anti-intellectualism, a stubborn dark jealousy at the success of rational explanations for phenomena that do not supervene upon his irrational ontologies.
Report comment to moderator
marriage has been seen as much more than “having someone you can sleep with,” no matter how deeply the partners know eachother soul and body.
I think you misunderstood me.
I was astonished too when my professor made that point, and she had to explain it for us to understand. The point is that when a couple sleeps together, they are making themselves vulnerable to each other. It goes waaay beyond sex, to having somebody you can share yourself with completely and wholly, an intimacy that transcends what happens in bed and keeps going until you’re old and gray.
I think it perhaps is the point the writer was trying to make in Touchstone.
Does that make more sense to you now, Joel?
Report comment to moderator
Erasmus,
We all reason from our a priori assumptions. What do you think the neo-Darwinists are doing when every biological and psychological discovery is interpreted in light of the theory. But I don’t believe that HSK’s post was meant as an apologetic to unbelievers. When we speak to people who already share are presuppositions, we don’t need to justify them. And WMB is a Christian blog, you know.
Report comment to moderator
Just for the record, I’ve noticed animals do bad things and have “guilty” looks. Perhaps we can put it down to creation groaning under the weight of man’s sin??
Do animals have a moral sense, even a very rudimentary one? It’s an interesting question and maybe not one for this thread.
Report comment to moderator
He who defines the terms, wins. Hasn’t the preponderance of modern redefinition been the realm of those who oppose traditional moral understandings?
Gay used to mean happy. Marriage used to be universally understood as one man and one woman. Natural used to be understood as something rather base, and therefore something to overcome or refine, as in, it’s natural to be selfish, but we all see the benefit to society of restraining that natural bent to look to the interests of others, also. (Per definition #2).
Report comment to moderator
All the dogs and dogs I’ve owned have always seemed to have guilty consciences when caught doing something they’ve been warned against doing, Kimberly, so I think you’re on to something!
Report comment to moderator
kimberly, of course they do. the dog example is a perfect one to illustrate the bankruptcy behind the human exceptionalist argument that HSK and Solon and many other earnest wishers need in order to maintain their religious beliefs.
even if they were to abstain from that commitment (the exceptionalism argument) the notion that creation groans from Teh Fall is just the sort of happy nonsense that permeates the fabric of all religious beliefs. A priori from empirical observation falsifies revelation, no matter how special.
17 this is why your comments about neo darwinists, whoever they are, are off the mark. discoveries are built on earlier discoveries, such as the fact of common descent. revelations have provided absolutely no new discoveries whatsoever, only piecemeal hindsight hermeneutics and other obfuscations ranging from deluded to malevolently stupid.
Report comment to moderator
Jon — “If any married Christians reading this have contracepted sex with their spouses, according to the only internally coherent theory of “naturalness” that can be used to condemn homosexuality (that is “naturalness” that relies solely on reason and not the Bible), you are doing something as “unnatural” as homosexuality.”
Yes, Jon, we’re all sinners. We realize that and admit it. Procreation should involve the single act with related activities of arousal and should be used specifically, and only, toward the goal of procreation. Any contraceptive practices would be unnatural and any married Christians using them are as equally “bad” as homosexuals because sin is sin. But then again, we’re all sinners and do things toward our fellow men far worse in the eyes of God than this everyday. The key differences are those of acknowledgment, pride and the desire to “sell,” or excuse, our sin as something it’s not.
I certainly hope that when you start writing for the big time, you’ll come up with something more substantial to offer than the old “you do it to” argument.
Report comment to moderator
something more substantial than your dividing by one and telling me the answer is different? yawn. empirically equivalent, I believe. Cue Pascals wager.
Report comment to moderator
Neo Darwinists–those who hold to updated and revised theories of evolution first popularized by Charles Darwin. I have no idea why neo-Darwinists are so averse to that term as if it isn’t an accurate description of their belief system.
Sorry, Erasmus, but your disparaging tone doesn’t strengthen the case for your beliefs, nor does it weaken ours. And your intellectual inability to recognize the a priori nature of your own epistemological assumptions makes it clear that you have no business commenting on the beliefs of others. The intellectual blindness coupled with the intellectual arrogance of the radical empiricists is something astounding to behold!
Report comment to moderator
Erasmus … you did make an interesting point on moral animals, but I’m not about to accept your various musings on that since my belief on the fall is just as valid as yours: they’re both belief .
Report comment to moderator
Is this World on the Web or Gayworld on the Web?
Report comment to moderator
Re-read the posts on this thread again, NT. Very little of the discussion is directed toward homosexual behavior, but rather the nature of “nature.”
Report comment to moderator
Tom Wolfe in his 2006 Jefferson Lecture, The Human Beast, addresses the nature or essence man
I love my man Zola. He’s my idol. But the whole business exudes irony so rich, you can taste it. It tastes like marzipan. Here we have Darwin and his doctrine that in 1859 rocks Western man’s very conception of himself . . . We have the most popular writer in the world in 1888, Zola, who can’t wait to bring the doctrine alive on the page . . . We have the next five generations of educated people who have believed and believe to this day that, at bottom, evolution’s primal animal urges rule our lives . . . to the point where the fourth greatest pop music hit of 2001, “You and Me, Baby” by the Bloodhound Gang, proclaims, “You and me, baby, we ain’t nothing but mammals. / So let’s do it like they do on the Dis-cov-ery Channel”–it’s rich! rich! rich beyond belief!
O. I love you, Emile, but by the time you and Darwin got hold of it, evolution had been irrelevant for 11,000 years. Why couldn’t you two see it? Evolution came to an end when the human beast developed speech! As soon as he became not Homo sapiens, “man reasoning,” but Homo loquax, “man talking”! Speech gave the human beast far more than an ingenious tool. Speech was a veritable nuclear weapon! It gave the human beast the powers of reason, complex memory, and long-term planning, eventually in the form of print and engineering plans. Speech gave him the power to enlarge his food supply at will through an artifice called farming. Speech ended not only the evolution of man, by making it no longer necessary, but also the evolution of animals! Our animal friends–we’re very sentimental about predators these days, aren’t we–the lions, the tigers, the wolves, the rhinoceroses, the great apes, kangaroos, leopards, cheetahs, grizzly bears, polar bears, cougars–they’re “endangered,” meaning hanging on for dear life. Today the so-called animal kingdom exists only at the human beast’s sufferance. The beast has dealt crippling blows even to the unseen empire of the microbes. Stunted adults from Third World countries with abysmal sanitation come to the United States and their offspring grow six or more inches taller, thanks to the wonders of hygiene. Cattle, sheep, pigs, chickens, turkeys would be extinct by now had not the human beasts hit upon the idea of animal husbandry. So far the human beast enjoys the luxury of crying sentimental tears over the deer because she’s so pretty. But the day the human beast discovers deer in his cellar, fawns in his bedroom closet, bucks tangling horns in the attic at night above his very bedroom . . . those filthy oversized vermin, the deer, will be added to that big long list above. We’re sentimental about the dolphins, because they’re so smart. What about the tuna? It’s okay to kill tunas by the ton because they’re dimwits? It would take an evolutionary mystic (and there are such) to believe these animals will ever evolve their way out of the hole they’re in thanks to man’s power of speech.
No evolutionist has come up with even an interesting guess as to when speech began, but it was at least 11,000 years ago, which is to say, 9000 B.C. It seems to be the consensus . . . in the notoriously capricious field of evolutionary chronology . . . that 9000 B.C. was about when the human beast began farming, and the beast couldn’t have farmed without speech, without being able to say to his son, “Son, this here’s seeds. You best be putting ‘em in the ground in rows ov’ere like I tell you if you wanna git any ears a corn this summer.”
Erasmus, of course, won’t get this, as he’s hopelessly trapped himself into a narrowly naturalistic view regarding the essense of human beings
Report comment to moderator
kimberly my only belief about the fall is that it is the dumbest idea i’ve ever heard.
do we have any reason to believe in Teh Fall other than the incoherent fumbling account given by sheep tending nomads? no. just like no talking snakes or giant boat full of dinosaurs or a man with one less rib but one more headache.
you don’t have any evidence for such a fall! yet you use the notion to construct all sorts of ontological accounts such as ‘natural’. let’s call this what this is: willful self delusion and impotent yearning that the world was different from the way that it is.
Ree not sure what beliefs you are talking about but if you mean Teh Fall then I don’t expect you to change your mind. no one who believes in such nonsense was led to that conclusion by the weight of any evidence, no they chose that account because it made the least amount of sense when compared with the evidence but viewed that as a prediction. it is the first long long step to the solipcism that HSK embraces. you can have it.
ps perhaps those who you call Neo Darwinists are not averse to your usage of the term but to your apparent abhorrent abject ignorance of what it entails.
Report comment to moderator
solon get what? that speech and agriculture might be related? no doubt i get that agriculture development and imperialism are related.
the assertion that ‘evolution ended when humans obtained speech’ is the bland stupidity of the misinformed or the callous deception of a Judas demagogue. what ‘hole are animals in’ that they ‘need to evolve out of’ [as if such colloquialisms were equivalent to formal inquiry, in other words garbage in garbage out]? Answer? None. Just bleating from the choir, Tom Wolfe.
Report comment to moderator
Erasmus: Ever heard of capitalization or spellcheck? It would make your thoughts (however incoherent and condescending) so much easier to comprehend for the reader.
Report comment to moderator
Erasmus, you sure do talk down to everybody. You use big words and sophisticated reasoning but then you won’t capitalize. Just what or who are you rebelling against?
Report comment to moderator
wow outkast do you have any examples of misspelled words? you always say this, yet you are unspectacularly unable to provide any examples. per capitalization, you could try to get an adult to read it to you. it doesn’t change the way words are pronounced, you know (boy they let anyone into Brick U back in the goodle days, didn’t they?)
also, what here is incoherent?
Report comment to moderator
32 Rebelling against spurious ontological claims that are asserted just to provide the ethical coverage for perpetuating inequality and injustice, as well as dumb ideas in general. I guess that covers it.
Report comment to moderator
by the way and just for the record I am recovering from this fundie nonsense. so think of my as your ruthless zen master knocking you about with the staff, so that your mind may be opened. and i am vulnerable to those knocks myself but I am fairly sure that my points are unassailable, even considering the saving throw of “The Fall Changed Everything”
Report comment to moderator
I only see blindness with a ‘bubble blower’ without the liquid in the bottle –
MINDLESS!
Report comment to moderator
Erasmus,
Is there any reason you keep referring to the fall as “Teh Fall?” Is the repeated transposed spelling in the simple article “the” supposed to represent something about our belief, or is it just an example of the sloppy editing skills some people have asked you to work on?
Nevertheless, one of the more striking evidences I see for the fall is the perverse pleasure man takes in rebellion and evil for their own sake. Augustine pointed out his own experience of this truth in his own life in his famous story of the stolen pears from his youth, but every one of us who’s remotely introspective can testify to it as well. And we see it in its less restrained form in incidences such as some of the things that men did during the Holocaust or in the lives of serial killers, etc.
Report comment to moderator
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teh
i do ask you to note that your evidence falls far short of being sufficient or necessary to provide justification for accepting the claim that the fall happened. classic post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Report comment to moderator
Ree google it “teh”
please note your evidence falls far short of having any explanatory power. this is a classic example of the fallacy ‘post hoc ergo propter hoc’, and is simply poor reasoning. again, as i have claimed upstream, i suspect that this account fails because you are affirming the consequent.
Report comment to moderator
Erasmus, a Zen master trying to knock sense into witless Christians. That’s a hoot; he’s actually a country boy who likes, as he says, to go fishin and huntin. He gave up what he regards as a declasse evangelical upbringing, picked up a few scraps of the Darwinian ideological mess of pottage, and now fancies himself as a member of the cultural elite that looks down its noses upon the unwashed Christian ignoramuses.
We can agree that his views are the sound of one hand clapping.
Report comment to moderator
Erasmus,
You are cracking me up. Note the ad hom attacks you receive as folks struggle to grasp meaning. …
Report comment to moderator
E #23 — “something more substantial than your dividing by one and telling me the answer is different?”
Wrong. The answer is the same. Sin.
Report comment to moderator
Re: #19
Momof5 is on to something (”he who defines the terms wins”).
This is a power struggle over language. Conservative Christians for the most part, have lost the “language” battle, though they do win a few skirmishes now and then. But they’re still fighting like mad to wrest control of the language. Folks like HSK are still loyal soldiers, trying to win against all odds.
Thus we see this skirmish over the word “natural”. In the end, I think the conservative Christian definition will be permanently relegated to the minority position. Y’all simply don’t have the numbers to impose your definition on the rest of us.
Now, I know it’s tough to get used to losing, but that’s the way it’s gonna be for the most part. Just think of yourselves as the Cleveland Browns. You have a great history, but you’ve pretty much fallen on hard times.
To the victor go the spoils.
Report comment to moderator
SIN isn’t winning, although it certainly is having ones way ‘for the moment’ – but it lasts for such a short time —-
Report comment to moderator
Anlir hallucinates that the ephemeral sexual “revolution” is the winner of orthodox and evangelical Christianity. Actually this “revolution” is as straw compared to the reality of the Holy Spirit that guides the Christian religion. The time will come when the Satanic force of moral relativism will be dealt with.
Also, one has to wonder why such a fevered anti-Christian has set himself up as the arbiter of Civility on this blog.
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt in plain language:
“Yer goin’ to hell! And Jesus and me will be laughing all the way to the bank!”
Report comment to moderator
40 is that good or bad? no one wants to defend HSK’s account of ‘natural’. I for one wonder why not, if it is so self-evident then a simple explication should change the skeptics mind, no? What, apostle Paul again? that little machiavellian shape shifter anticipated that argument? surely not.
solon, only one has to wonder. that would be you. the rest of us that oppose your shoddy reasoning and deceptive logic, and the authoritarian overtones that your apologetics have inherited from their authoritarian predecessors, do not wonder at all why any one would oppose such blatant defiance of reason. if you achieve the goal, you say ‘anti-christian’ as if there were such a thing as ‘christian’ to be opposed to. hint: there is not. plurality defeats your ontological claim, so again you will be reduced to choosing the scotsmen from the scots.
Report comment to moderator
anlir, not only in the minority but also demonstrably wrong inasmuch as their ontological claim is vulnerable to confrontation with facts. as long as the courtier’s reply is (in their deluded minds) a valid response, we will hear more of this tired foolishness. vigilance being the eternal price etc.
Report comment to moderator
Erasmus
You’re just too smart for me. Could you write in a way that makes sense to a simple reader? Your thought processes are beyond my trying to easily understand. You lose me a few words into most of your posts.
I am unsure how not capitalizing is “32 Rebelling against spurious ontological claims that are asserted just to provide the ethical coverage for perpetuating inequality and injustice, as well as dumb ideas in general. I guess that covers it.” But, whatever makes you happy.
Report comment to moderator
ERASMUS: HSK likes the slipperiness loose definitions allow, and he contorts his arguments using this tactic quite frequently.
Definitions are most accommodating to him. Like many Christian apologists, he’s a peon of postmodernism. Talk about the irony of Christian “nature,” I’m struck by the irony of the name of this magazine, Touchstone. This publication offers itself as a criterion of judgement, but of course the name conjures up the fool in the Forrest of Arden who states everything otherwise.
Natural may not mean morally normative, but it can be delightfully pastoral, and anybody with any sense wants to go there!
Report comment to moderator
Ree google it “teh”
I looked at Wikipedia. It says it’s a common typo.
please note your evidence falls far short of having any explanatory power. this is a classic example of the fallacy ‘post hoc ergo propter hoc’, and is simply poor reasoning. again, as i have claimed upstream, i suspect that this account fails because you are affirming the consequent.
Interpreting experience to ascertain ultimate truth isn’t about logical syllogisms. But this response is a good example of what I mean about your epistemological naivete.
Report comment to moderator
well put Erasmus
Report comment to moderator
49 it is at once both morosely depressing and uproariously hilarious that folks like HSK can perpetuate the postmodern foolishness while at the same time baring their teeth at what they perceive to be the ‘Establishment’. kettle, pot, pot, kettle.
50 if your reading skills do not surpass your comprehension skills no one will be surprised. please, do tell about my epistemological naivete. anyone asserting such assinine horse manure as ‘Teh Fall’ is beyond the reach of both syllogistic reasoning and the recognition of the importance of empiricism for such grandiose ontological claims.
the FSM is such a wonderful caricature of this platonic thinking that I am not sure that it can be topped. proponents of this view are a cartoon of themselves. if it weren’t for complete toolbags like Ken Ham speaking at Pentagon prayer breakfasts we could relegate you flat earthers to the diaper bin of obscurity and tired ideas. Sadly, there are enough jerks in power that imbibe directly from the noxious dry teat of your flawed ideology that we must earnestly confront this deliberate stupidity anytime it bares it’s teeth.
Report comment to moderator
RAmen, Erasmus.
Report comment to moderator
Example #1: Teh Fall
Report comment to moderator
#52 “Teh” Erasmus
“Brevity is the soul of wit.”
Report comment to moderator
anyone asserting such assinine horse manure as ‘Teh Fall’
Another strong evidence for the fallenness of man–your responses.
Report comment to moderator
when confronted with abject black hole vapid nonsense, only a strong response will suffice. Ree you have given away the store.
Report comment to moderator
ps outkast I know that that is all you got. And that one is on purpose, as you well know, to heighten Teh Flair.
Report comment to moderator
Ree: I looked at Wikipedia. It says it’s a common typo.
You must not have read past the first sentence, because that Wikipedia entry goes on to explain the uses of “teh” rather well. And it is pretty clear from context how Erasmus is meaning it.
Report comment to moderator
As my father always said, “Silence is agreement.”
Report comment to moderator
Getting back to Frederica Mathewes Green’s salient point:
But there’s a problem. If “natural” means “anything that happens,” there are absolutely no limits. Anything that anyone can think of doing with his sex organs has to be called natural—not just homosexuality, but pedophilia, necrophilia, rape, or any other thing humans do. A definition that permits the first type of activity but excludes the others can’t do so without acquiring more clauses.
The above view of “natural” is essentially a Pagan and sometimes gnostic view of nature that spiritualizes the instincts and tends naturally [ahem] to the violent, orgiastic, and hedonistic. The dominant intellectual current of our time, supported by Darwin, Freud, and Jung, amounts to a Pagan Revolution. It eliminates man qua man and reduces him to mere naturalistic mechanism. In truth this view is at the heart of our deep modern despair.
Catholics, orthodox and evangelical Christians, along with Orthodox Jews understand that succumbing to the polymorphic perverse “natural” instincts is fraught with peril. Jeffrey Satinover, a brilliant contemporary psychiatrist, phrases the Judeo-Christian view of nature as follows:
[ethical] Monotheism observes that although the satisfaction of the [natural] instinctive drives gives pleasure, by itself it doesn’t give joy. It knows, rather, that we are so constituted – because of our dual nature- as to require something that goes beyond mere pleasure; that the pursuit of pleasure apart from God leads inevitably to to emptiness and despair; that to worship pleasure is ultimately to court despair and thus to seek death
The assorted Pagans on this thread who follow the modern secular herd have no conception of the the Judeo-Christian view advanced by Frederica Mathewes Green and Harrison Scott Key; that is why they heap scorn on the views of these good people regarding the complex definitions of nature.
Report comment to moderator
First, an appreciation of Erasmus. I would agree that many treat the Fall as a sort of a priori, epistemological get-out-of-jail free card. Part of this mistake arises from an apologetic that frames salvation as a response to known sin — all good, if one knows sin, but if not then we are in for endless cycles of proving that we really are sinners. The Eastern Church also keeps pointing out that the the Fall narrative is a concept from the West (another interesting idea).
That said, another understanding of The Fall creates an epistemological humility. Our knowing is limited, even corrupt not merely because of the data we have, but in the very limitations of our own thinking, especially by its self-referential and self-serving qualities. Knowledge and our conclusions alike bring with them a sneaking sense of “what’s in it for me.” As we can’t escape this aspect of our thought, the best we can do is to engage with a measure of humility.
This humility points to the role of faith (so Anslem, fides quaerens intellectum “faith seeking understanding” — another massive project).
And this in turn brings us back to the use of Nature. Nature/Natural, like The Fall, is often used as another of these epistemological get-of-jail-free cards. In Romanticism, the Natural is assumed to be good (behind it lie certain pan- or panentheistic concepts). Of course, for Mattewes-Green there is also Natural as in Natural Law, but this too shares the same problem. Both positions assume that something can be known about God apart from relationship to God (see Anselm, above). Open up the hood on both these narratives, and there is the happy privileging of the Self: we know and conveniently Nature proves that we are right.
Evangelicals have historically resisted the optimism of the Romantics, as well as the implicit priestcraft of Natural Law.
Report comment to moderator
Not to completely change the subject, but I believe the best definition of Natural is….
….
….
Josh Hamiliton. That guy is the natural
Report comment to moderator
#61
Speaking of Pagans:
It’s the shortest day for me, but probably the longest day for most of y’all.
Report comment to moderator
You must not have read past the first sentence, because that Wikipedia entry goes on to explain the uses of “teh” rather well. And it is pretty clear from context how Erasmus is meaning it.
Instead of reading through all that, I went to the Urban Dictionary for the short version. One definition compared it to the way Spanish speakers uses “el,” but since I’m not a Spanish speaker, that definition didn’t help. I found this succinct definition enlightening, though.
“An expression used by idiots to helpfully identify themselves to other idiots.”
No wonder I didn’t get it and you did.
Report comment to moderator
First, an appreciation of Erasmus. I would agree that many treat the Fall as a sort of a priori, epistemological get-out-of-jail free card.
There’s nothing philosophically dishonest or sloppy about interpreting experience in accordance with one’s own first principles, and in fact, no one can fail to do it.
What’s sloppy and dishonest is relying on first principles that are philosophically unjustifiable within one’s own comprehensive worldview, even while dismissing those of others through mockery.
Report comment to moderator
ree you have given a thorough account of relative truth and the solipcism inherent in your po-mo epistemology.
There IS NO EVIDENCE OF A FALL.
Now, let’s get into how I am ‘relying on first principles that are philosophically ujustifiable within [my] comprehensive worldview’. That should be interesting, because we both know that you are full of it from your shoes to your hat.
Report comment to moderator
Erasmus, read any daily newspaper or watch TV news, let alone your own heart; you shall find ample evidence of the Fall. The problem is that you live in a fanciful naturalistic mindset that ignores hard reality. Ree has you nailed on this.
Report comment to moderator
Really, solon? I see ample evidence that people perpetuate inequality and injustice, and I see ample evidence that your people do this. I see no evidence to corroborate your little mythical narrative about human nature, and I find it much more likely (per Daniel Quinn) that the Fall myth is really a narrative of culture guilt regarding the transition from hunting gathering to agriculture, and the ensuing effects destroying people’s sense of place in both the landscape and in their local ecological communities.
But, again, show me what this ‘hard reality’ is. I daresay it is not as hard as you think it is, but then you would know that and still say otherwise.
Report comment to moderator
Erasmus, the hard reality, as C.S. Lewis remarked in Mere Christianity, is that we live in a morally ordered universe but are unable to meet its requirements. That is the meaning of original sin. Any honest human being capable of examining him/herself knows this.
Your attempted Darwinian escape from this by simply declaring yourself a somewhat advanced mammal and $1.50 might get you a cup of coffee.
Report comment to moderator
we live in a morally ordered universe
Says you. I think you are wrong. I’ll agree we live in a morally ordered social groups. Guess who ordered them? The Invisible Hand? Hardly.
Any honest human being capable of examining him/herself knows this.
Hmmm wonder where I fall in there in your false trichotomy? Funny how it takes a gang of do-gooders stocked with plastic trinkets and battery operated crap to convince aboriginal people of this.
there is nothing to escape, only this ignorance to resist. the [false] concept of original sin has perpetuated more misery on the planet than any other idea. even more sadly, the idea is propped up on flights of fancy, irrational ontologies and the brute force of dogma defenders. you sure pitched in with the wrong lot solon.
Report comment to moderator
Now, let’s get into how I am ‘relying on first principles that are philosophically ujustifiable within [my] comprehensive worldview’. That should be interesting, because we both know that you are full of it from your shoes to your hat.
One example is the way that you pronounce judgments on others as if your own moral notions actually had some binding authority. In a Darwinian universe, they couldn’t.
I see ample evidence that people perpetuate inequality and injustice, and I see ample evidence that your people do this.
So you aren’t actually disputing that there’s evidence, only our interpretation of the evidence. Keep that in mind next time you’re tempted to declare that there isn’t any evidence.
I find it much more likely (per Daniel Quinn) that the Fall myth is really a narrative of culture guilt regarding the transition from hunting gathering to agriculture, and the ensuing effects destroying people’s sense of place in both the landscape and in their local ecological communities.
If this were so, then we would expect primitive tribes to live happily and in harmony with one another. Instead, we find them killing and eating each other.
Report comment to moderator
Actually, once one understands that he/she, however hard the trying, sins in assorted ways daily, then they can humbly fall upon the knees and pray forgiveness. Otherwise, of necessity, morality gets settled by arrogant might rather than right.
This proved be a crystal clear analysis of the evil Nazi regime.
Heinrich Heine, the German- Jewish poet and convert to Christianity wrote presciently in 1892 that:
It is the great merit of Christianity that it has somewhat attenuated the German lust for battle. But it could not destroy it entirely. And should ever that talisman break-the Cross-then will come roaring back the roaring madness of the ancient warriors of whom our German poet speak and sing, with all their insane Beserker rage. That talisman is now steadily crumbling, and the day is not far off when it shall break apart entirely. On that day the stone gods will rise from their long forgotten wreckage and rub from their eyes the dust of a thousand years of sleep. At long last leaping to life. Thor with his his Gothic hammer will crush the cathedrals… There will be played in Germany a play compared to which the French Revolution was but an innocent idyll.
Heine understood something that most moderns don’t; that once the Cross and spiritual truth is traduced, as you and your Darwinian friends argue,
then we return to sort of vicious paganism that causes such crucial matters as Christian marriage, abortion, and justice to fall by the wayside.
Report comment to moderator
what is this darwinian universe you speak of? never heard of it. pointing out inconsistencies in your position doesn’t mean i am suggesting that you should correct them. hardly, because I fully expect you, as a believer, to live in muddled confusion and external contradiction.
again, you pass the buck.
I am disputing yes indeedy. we have evidence of people perpetuating injustice and equality. that is not commensurate with evidence of magic apples or jealous snakes. you take the available evidence and add a slew of speculations and demonstrably false assertions, then claim this to be ‘just another interpretation’. PoMo, thou art, and all you get from this is just another relative truth claim (but in your case it is contradicted by the available evidence that denies your creation myth and hence your Fall myth).
Do we find primitive tribes living killing and eating each other? sometimes, usually not! have you any idea of the history of anglo expansion into North America? killing and eating each other is not what was going on here, particularly in the southeast. your ignorance of actual history here is a problem that only you can overcome. read Mooney’s History and Lore of Cherokee Indians (or something like that). read Bartram.
even beyond all that, your ‘if this were so’ clause does not follow from my premise. further, the advent of modern (+/-) warfare to native americans followed directly from their exposure to europeans, which have a long legacy of this agriculture/place contradiction.
Report comment to moderator
solon your germans forged their hammer from the cross without changing it’s shape. you know the story, and it is dishonest to suggest that a lessening of the influence of christianity is the root of the nazi regime rise, when in fact it was a fundamental if not absolutely essential primary ingredient.
Report comment to moderator
Erasmus, I should suggest that you give up a few days of fishin’ and readin’ in empirical science and dispassionately digest From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany by Richard Weikart. The horrors of Hitler, Stalin and Mao in the Twentieth Century all stemmed essentially from assorted forms of pagan secular humanistic utopias brought about in good part by Darwin, Marx, and Nietzsche.
Report comment to moderator
Teh Fall Guy on ABC was a great show!
Lee Majors – he was good, but Heather Thomas (sigh) – she was natural.
Report comment to moderator
The two ultimate “trump” cards in modern day conservative Christianity:
1. The “Nazi” card.
2. Tell em they’re going to hell.
You’ve been “served” Erasmus!
Report comment to moderator
Anlir, the Twentieth Century horrors of Nazism and Communism claimed the lives of tens of millions of people. Heinrich Heine and Richard Weikart attribute this primarily to the Utopian fantasies of the atheistic and pagan socialist characters, Hitler, Mao, and Stalin.
Do you have a better explanation, or are you content to hurl shallow brickbats regarding the modern “trump cards” conservatives?
Report comment to moderator
It’s evident that you’re all wrong. All the misery in the world is the product of Pandora opening that jar. The suffering and injustice in the world is ample evidence of this self-evident truth.
Report comment to moderator
That’s one interpretation, I suppose, but you’re going to run into some real trouble demonstrating how the polytheistic worldview from whence you got this idea is consistent with all of experiential reality.
Report comment to moderator
The horrors of Hitler, Stalin and Mao in the Twentieth Century all stemmed essentially from assorted forms of pagan secular humanistic utopias brought about in good part by Darwin, Marx, and Nietzsche.
One huge generalization here; and one that can’t be supported.
Communism originates from the Enlightenment. Although many acknowledge classical liberalism as the child of the enlightenment many do not acknowledge the enlightenment origin of communisms. Stripping away the irrational rules of the medieval order was part of the classical liberal creed but creating a rational order for a more just society is the communist creed; both sought reason as an aide to run society. Hence, socialist and “classic” liberals in Europe have managed temporary periods of cooperation.
Fascism and its bastard child Nazism was formed as reaction to the enlightenment. fascist ideology was first formulated by southern European conservatives and catholic clerics as an alternative to liberal democracy. Thus communism and Nazism do not have the same humanistic root — Nazism has its root in an organic view of society which placed higher emphasis on culture and its adherents and attributes than a reasonable manner of governance which is the forte of socialism, communism and liberal democracy.
Marx, Nietzsche and Darwin are as opposite in world view as three people can be. Nietzsche had nothing but scorn for the other two and Marx had very little respect for the social Darwinian ism propagated by Spencer and his ilk.
Citing some fellow’s book doesn’t lump the three together – a historical overview of ideology and personalities can attest that they had very little in common.
Report comment to moderator
s C.S. Lewis remarked in Mere Christianity, is that we live in a morally ordered universe but are unable to meet its requirements. That is the meaning of original sin.
an other huge unsubstantiated claim. the universe is a morally ordered one but it really isn’t since we mucked it up. Empirically speaking we know there is very little about the world that is moral in the Christian sense of the term yet that would be admitting that God created something imperfect so we say it was perfect but now its not and its our fault. The only empirical verifiable fact is the lack of moral order, the rest is guesswork.
Erasmus posits an expression of collective guilt by a newly developed agricultural society to explain the concept of the fall. An estrangement of nature. The Fall could be the expression of collective nostalgia as societies tend to look back to a golden era as much as they look forward to a better future.
Or go PoMo against Erasmus’ objections and simply claim “nature” as a category error. The category need not actually exist but was created by humans simply to separate and order our perceptions of reality. Nothing is natural only that which we infer to be natural so as to support our cultural mindset – which isn’t much different from the first nature defined by HSK only my view admits that its relative to the perceiver and there is no platonic ideal nature.
Report comment to moderator
italics were supposed to be for the first paragraph only — Peter Leavitt’s previous post
Report comment to moderator
That’s one interpretation, I suppose, but you’re going to run into some real trouble demonstrating how the polytheistic worldview from whence you got this idea is consistent with all of experiential reality.
That may be so, but I don’t see the Christian worldview as being any more “consistent with all of experiential reality.”
Report comment to moderator
Perhaps you don’t see it, but when we view human experience through the lens of the triune God, we see a philosophically comprehensive and consistent picture that doesn’t rely on arbitrary (or borrowed) presuppositions such as the moral imperative or the uniformity of nature. Good luck demonstrating that with your Greek gods.
Report comment to moderator
“A philosophically comprehensive and consistent picture” isn’t necessarily true. And one that assures its own comprehensiveness and consistency by the repetition of the evasive mantra “God did/wills it”, is little more convincing than Erasmus’ Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Report comment to moderator
Solon I suggest you stop harrumphing into chat rooms and counting your filthy lucre and take the requisite amount of time to read all of the evidence for Bigfoot, Space Aliens, Atlantis and 9/11 Troof. It is equivalent to the scholarship of the DI Fellow Weikart. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, fortunately weikart has neither.
Ree
Perhaps you don’t see it, but when we view human experience through the lens of the triune God, we see a philosophically comprehensive and consistent picture that doesn’t rely on arbitrary (or borrowed) presuppositions such as the moral imperative or the uniformity of nature. Good luck demonstrating that with your Greek gods.
LOL perhaps you don’t see it. Perhaps you don’t either. Where do you come up with this stuff? you can’t even demonstrate that with your god, much less any god. you just have empirically equivalent mythological narratives.
That’s the great part. There is just as much evidence for my interpretation of Teh Fall as there is for your magical tarnish of creation interpretation of Teh Fall. Even more, in fact, since we know of pre-biblical agricultural people.
Report comment to moderator
“A philosophically comprehensive and consistent picture” isn’t necessarily true.
It’s no coincidence that all the philosophies of the apostates on this board and elsewhere rely on borrowed assumptions from Christianity. The triune God is an ontological necessity. Without Him, you can only grope around in the darkness, and all your presumptions to knowledge rest on nothing but arbitrariness. But that you “don’t see it,” is a given.
And one that assures its own comprehensiveness and consistency by the repetition of the evasive mantra “God did/wills it”, is little more convincing than Erasmus’ Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Sorry to detract from Erasmus’ reputation as the eminently clever one, but he has no copyright on the silly “Flying Spaghetti Monster.” I hear of this invented being ad nauseum from would-be atheist apologists all over the web. My neighbor even has the metal FSM decal on his car.
Report comment to moderator
Ree,
You have a bunch of truth claims that you declare to be an “ontological necessity”, but they remain as a bunch of truth claims.
And I know the FSM isn’t Erasmus’ creation, I was acknowledging his mention of it.
Report comment to moderator
It’s no coincidence that all the philosophies of the apostates on this board and elsewhere rely on borrowed assumptions from Christianity.
I’ll tell you what is no coincidence, it is that this tired old dog trouts out of his box every oncer in a while, arfs at a few passersby, then wheezes back to his privileged little soft cushion. I don’t mind to help him out: we can drag that pillow right out here in the yard and shake the mites out’n of it if’n you want to.
that there are any borrowed assumptions at all is of course the part where you are playing rhetorical sleights of hand. claim something enough, and it will become true. no coincidence that this marriage of fascist postmodernism and right wing religious ideology suits your perceived ends.
‘arbitrariness’ is what makes you have to water your garden and put gas in your car. arbitrariness is why you turn left instead of driving off of the bridge. your claims about the ontological necessity of the Prime Primer are as Flaming Icarus points out, just claims that are empirically equivalent to claims about anything else. I don’t know what your brand of revelation is, but don’t try to push it on me man. At the end of the day you still must wash your bowl.
Report comment to moderator
A defense of the claims would be out of place on this thread and would require more time than I’m willing to put in right now, but I had a similar discussion with SteveG on another thread a number of weeks ago where I not only defended my claims, but also pressed him to philosophically defend the presuppositions upon which he based his beliefs. Quite expectedly, he wasn’t able to. Rather, he was content with his arbitrariness, as has been everyone else with whom I’ve had these discussions or observed having them in discussions with other Christians.
Report comment to moderator
There’s nothing postmodern about Christian epistemology. In fact, modernist epistemology is what supplanted Christian epistemology in Western culture. The postmodernists are useful only in that they’ve exposed the flaws of the modernists. But postmodernists remain with their “feet firmly planted in midair,” just like their elder modernist cousins because, just like them, they assume a moral and intellectual autonomy that man can simply never possess.
Report comment to moderator
so you whupped SteveG huh. hope he hears that. i didn’t read that thread, don’t have a clue what you’re on about.
How many axioms do you need? I’ll spot you a few, just let me know how many.
Report comment to moderator
I didn’t “whup” anyone; I just made a simple point–that he has no grounding for that which he counts as true.
How many axioms do you need? I’ll spot you a few, just let me know how many.
Don’t know what you’re getting at here.
Report comment to moderator
sure you do. you are talking about warrant and which presuppositions we can hold without justification.
parsimony suggests that the fewer, the better.
you are kicking dirt into the rabbit hole where the solipcism beast resides. careful, there is loose footing here.
i’ll grant you the sterile observation that everyone holds things to be true that they cannot show to be true beyond a shadow of doubt. happily, i will grant this, because it is trivial. You have given ignorance, even potential ignorance, an elevated position in your ontology, because of your reliance upon the Prime Primer fallacy.
Report comment to moderator
“…and it is dishonest to suggest that a lessening of the influence of christianity is the root of the nazi regime rise, when in fact it was a fundamental if not absolutely essential primary ingredient.”
I tell you what’s dishonest, and that’s saying the Nazism’s “essential primary ingredient” is Christianity. In fact it’s downright immoral in it’s dishonesty.
The following statements are from memory from (I believe) this documentary – so you can sue me if I get it wrong:
http://tinyurl.com/3h43hx
Nazism rise did get it’s impetus from the German churches support of Hitler. And that came about because of Germany’s poor image from the first world war. Germany was trying to get back on it’s feet, and salvage it’s reputation. In Hitler the church, and the common people, saw a way to regain it’s influence, and their country’s self image. And in the church Hitler saw a way to gain support. It was a match made in hell…
It’s no fault of true Christianity that Hitler saw a way to subvert Christian semantics to his own foul purposes…
Report comment to moderator
so MIM you are saying I should backpedal to the position “in fact [religious belief in general] was a fundamental if not absolutely essential primary ingredient”? I’d agree with that as well, it is historical contingency that made it Christianity perhaps, but that does not lift the indictment of centuries of preceding anti-semitism as ideology and practice of people who took the bible seriously for whatever reasons.
entirely apropos, just today, on the Thumb.
Report comment to moderator
sure you do. you are talking about warrant and which presuppositions we can hold without justification.
No, I’m saying that we can’t make knowledge claims at all if our basic underlying worldview assumptions don’t provide the preconditions of intelligibility for the presuppositions from which we reason. Self-conscious postmodernists recognize this and, hence, make no truth claims at all. Self-conscious Christians recognize this and, hence, are strengthened in their understanding of the futility of autonomous reason. I’d venture to say that there are no epistemologically self-conscious modernists, because if they become so, and if their rebellion against their Creator remains, they become postmodernists.
Report comment to moderator
I certainly think you should backpedal from your and other’s insistence that Nazisim was Christian in essence.
“…but that does not lift the indictment of centuries of preceding anti-semitism as ideology and practice of people who took the bible seriously for whatever reasons.”
I’m afrain you’re going to have to convince men of that one. I’m not aware of “centuries of preceding anti-semitism”.
Report comment to moderator
Ree,
I’ve seen a lot of Van Tillian / Bahnsen pressuppositionalist arguments across the web and they tend not to go anywhere, because they judge other worldviews not necessarily against their own worldview, but against their own value system which lead them to adopt their worldview.
This in itself isn’t particularly unusual. It’s the adamantly enforced base premise that Christianity is true and all other worldviews are false that sits on shakey ground. The more likely reality is that they simply cannot sustain their own value system within another worldview, and that’s the criteria by which they deem other worldviews to be false.
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt at #80: Heinrich Heine and Richard Weikart attribute this primarily to the Utopian fantasies of the atheistic and pagan socialist characters, Hitler, Mao, and Stalin.
Do you know what pagan actually means? Because you hurl that word at pretty much everybody who isn’t Christian. Unfortunately, the definition I found in my dictionary was not: Any person that Peter Leavitt deems to be non-Christian.
Report comment to moderator
ree: he triune God is an ontological necessity. Without Him, you can only grope around in the darkness, and all your presumptions to knowledge rest on nothing but arbitrariness. But that you “don’t see it,” is a given.
this is one of the statements that has the advantage of sounding learned and sophisticated, and complex, and actually means absolutely nothing.
Report comment to moderator
101 MIM don’t play coy. Luther was just one flower on the christian bush blaming jews for jesus’ death and predicting that 2/3 of them must die in order for christians to be raptured. this insane eschatology is the warp and woof of christian belief.
Report comment to moderator
I’m not playing coy Erasmus. I just haven’t heard much about anti-semitism in the church of that era. Must be spending too much time in the right wing religious echo chamber. Actually the first time I heard about Luther’s stuff was when I watched that Bonhoeffer Documentary I linked to above.
So like I said, you’re going to have to convince me with something other than your say so. Give some more examples (besides Luther) please.
Report comment to moderator
“The more likely reality is that they simply cannot sustain their own value system within another worldview, and that’s the criteria by which they deem other worldviews to be false.”
I would assert that you need to revise that evaluation. It’s more likely that almost everyone in the world tries to sustain a value system as if it is absolute, no matter what their worldview. Many of these worldviews cannot sustain that proposition. Only a worldview with a Creator can even begin to be coherent with this proposition. And that’s how they (Christians) deem other worldviews to be false.
I’ll give you this though; even though Atheism and Agnosticism are incoherent systems when it comes to absolute morality, and Christianity is a coherent system when it comes to absolute morality, it does not prove the truth of Christianity – it is merely an indication that it may be true.
Report comment to moderator
It’s more likely that almost everyone in the world tries to sustain a value system as if it is absolute…
That’s actually my point, MIM.
Do people really try “to sustain a value system as if it is absolute”, or is this proposition a deal-breaking condition of your own value system?
Report comment to moderator
#106
google ‘antisemitism early church’.
lots of stuff.
first hit i got was this one “http://therefinersfire.org/antisemitism_in_church.htm”
this ain’t no liberal preacher, I remember this guy from yahoo chat rooms a long time ago and he is a bona fide fundie nut. yet he is making my point. so we agree about something
Report comment to moderator
Actually the first time I heard about Luther’s stuff was when I watched that Bonhoeffer Documentary I linked to above.
Luther’s anti-Semitism, although extreme, was of an entirely different character than the anti-Semitism of the Nazis. Here are some well researched papers on Luther’s attitude toward the Jews.
Report comment to moderator
I’ve seen a lot of Van Tillian / Bahnsen pressuppositionalist arguments across the web and they tend not to go anywhere, because they judge other worldviews not necessarily against their own worldview, but against their own value system which lead them to adopt their worldview.
Could you be more specific about this “value system?”
Report comment to moderator
“The triune God is an ontological necessity. Without Him, you can only grope around in the darkness, and all your presumptions to knowledge rest on nothing but arbitrariness. But that you ‘don’t see it,’ is a given.”
this is one of the statements that has the advantage of sounding learned and sophisticated, and complex, and actually means absolutely nothing.
Except that so many of your posts on these threads are prime examples of this truth. You constantly make statements that rely on assumptions borrowed from Christianity.
Report comment to moderator
“Do people really try “to sustain a value system as if it is absolute”, or is this proposition a deal-breaking condition of your own value system?”
Can you rephrase that question? I’m afraid I don’t understand it. The fact that you are agreeing with me is throwing me off. I expected you to deny that most people in the world don’t think that morality is absolute. Or at least tell me that you don’t think it’s absolute…
Report comment to moderator
“You constantly make statements that rely on assumptions borrowed from Christianity.”
Ree I’m calling you on this one. It is not true, as far as I can see, and until you demonstrate it let’s just both acknowledge it for what it is: wishful thinking and obfuscation.
Report comment to moderator
Erasmus, I’m reading your link, and the first thing that jumps out to me is the fact that it’s Islam that is now hyper anti-semitic.
Christianity, on the other hand, presently is not. In fact, I believe true Christianity, as opposed to “present Christianity” would probably agree more with the Apostle Paul who expressed that he would rather be annihilated if it could save his bretheren.
So much for Islam and Christianity being the same…
Report comment to moderator
Erasmus,
everyone who acts as if morality is absolute proves Ree’s statement.
If you express moral outrage at my beliefs or Christian’s actions, then you are borrowing assumptions from Christianity, because agnosticism and atheism cannot generate a coherent moral system. When you express that moral outrage, then you are acting as if morality was absolute. If it were truly relative, then you should have no outrage simply because I made a different choice than you did.
Report comment to moderator
115
really? according to your bible 2/3 of the jews in the world have to die before the rapture comes and you float off to heaven in a cloud. wonder how much this has to do with supporting israel as a neo-con foreign policy? when nutcases like Ken Ham speak at Pentagon prayer breakfasts and john mccain is supported by nut cases like John Hagee who spout this apocalyptic nonsense, it makes you wonder why are they trying to get all the jews in one place? we don’t know, but it is most reasonable to suspect that these freakshows are trying to fulfill biblical prophecy. So what, you say? my point is that the bible claims that 2/3 of the jews on earth HAVE TO DIE so that JEsus can return.
antisemitism is built in to your eschatology.
i’m sure we’ve been over this before, but arabs are semites and cannot by definition be called antisemitic for anything they to do to semitic jews. anymore than you can be called anti-american for beating up black people eskimos or LA hookers.
Report comment to moderator
116
how so. All Ree has done is repeated something enough to where people like you think it is true.
Nowhere has she shown what ‘presuppositions’ we ‘borrow’ from christianity. She won’t do so either, because that vapid idiocy cannot withstand the light of inquiry.
moral ‘outrage’ (whatever that is) is not any evidence of an appeal to an absolute morality. i could care less about what the Prime Primer thinks about you stealing my shoes, if I catch you doing I’m going up side your head. It doesn’t matter if that is some fundamental law written into the structure of Zircon atoms (it isn’t) or any other essential b.s. this absolute moral business is happy horsepuckey, easily dispensed with by explication and comparison to what I suspect really drive moral decisions: pragmatism.
Report comment to moderator
agnosticism and atheism cannot generate a coherent moral system
repeat something long enough and the rabble will take it to true.
show me how this is so and I will cease desisting your claim. but i think we both know that if it is true, then it is also true for any other -ism.
Report comment to moderator
Ree I’m calling you on this one. It is not true, as far as I can see, and until you demonstrate it let’s just both acknowledge it for what it is: wishful thinking and obfuscation.
We’ve been over and over this. The worldview you’ve described fails to provide the preconditions for the intelligibility of the knowledge claims you make. You’ve alluded to some universal spiritual “goodness” embodied in all religions, but you have no coherent epistemology for how we can know what’s good, or how we can know anything, for that matter. Where did we come from? Why are we here? How can we know anything? Why should we trust our sense perceptions to tell us anything about reality? What is love, where does it come from, and why is it “good?” Etc.
Why should anyone, including you, presume that there’s any connection between the ideas rattling around in SteveG’s head a reality that exists outside of that head? Again, you don’t have a coherent epistemology, but you still presume to know things.
Report comment to moderator
moral ‘outrage’ (whatever that is) is not any evidence of an appeal to an absolute morality. i could care less about what the Prime Primer thinks about you stealing my shoes, if I catch you doing I’m going up side your head. It doesn’t matter if that is some fundamental law written into the structure of Zircon atoms (it isn’t) or any other essential b.s. this absolute moral business is happy horsepuckey, easily dispensed with by explication and comparison to what I suspect really drive moral decisions: pragmatism
Then I guess those bystanders who watched a man beat his two-year-old son to death were morally justified. Having done nothing, they were able to continue with their lives unscathed. If they’d intervened, they might’ve been injured or killed, themselves. Moral, pragmatic reaction on their parts.
Report comment to moderator
“…arabs are semites and cannot by definition be called antisemitic for anything they to do to semitic jews…”
Oh broth-eerrr! Let’s just split hairs shall we? What a stupid argument. I’m not even going to attempt to refute that. I’m just going to call it the idiocy it is. You know what I meant, and you know that I’m right.
“antisemitism is built in to your eschatology”
Right.
Ok, speaking of nutcases… If you aren’t even going to attempt to be rational this conversation is over.
Report comment to moderator
MIM,
Sorry my response wasn’t clear. And no, I wasn’t actually agreeing with you.
My point was that if someone decrees absolute morality as a condition of a valid worldview, and then dismisses all worldviews that can’t sustain that condition, they’re failing to note that other worldviews don’t have that condition (absolute morality is necessary) in them. Some of them even consider that condition as anathema to their worldview.
What I’m getting at is that imposing value judgements, that are sustained in one worldview, onto another worldview is not so much a comparison of worldviews as it is a comparison of the values systems that the adherents of those worldviews want sustained.
Which is really to say that all the first premises that presuppositionalists use to criticise other worldviews are in themselves not supported.
E.g. Premise: A valid worldview must support absolute morality.
Another premise: A coherent worldview must have epistemological certainty.
These are in themselves debatable value judgements and just because someone holds these values, and believe Christianity as the only possible WV that supports these values, doesn’t mean that Christianity is true, because these values/premises have never been shown to be true.
Report comment to moderator
“Premise: A valid worldview must support absolute morality.”
Thanks for the clarification.
What I am asserting, and I’m not sure you followed me, is that people, at least all the people I know and interact with, pretty much live and act as though morality is absolute.
This premise is not so much proven as much as it is impossible to live as though morality is relative. Sure it’s all debatable, but when it all gets down to the nitty gritty, people cannot live as though morality is relative.
I’d also go a step further and say that they do the same thing with truth and meaning.
I might even go a step farther than that and say they do the same thing with beauty, but I haven’t thought about that one much…
For anyone one to pronounce judgements upon another, they must have some moral grounding upon which to do so. I find that agnosticism and atheism have no such grounding, since morality in that system is inherently relative. Because of this, morality in this kind of worldview is incoherent. Taken to the rightful conclusions, an atheist would have to shut up about moral claims.
I guess what I’m saying in a nutshell is that Atheism and Agnosticism taken to their logical conclusions are not truly livable systems morally.
If you want to keep backing up though, you could even debate whether the law of non-contradiction is a valid way to evaluate anything…
Report comment to moderator
We’ve been over and over this. The worldview you’ve described fails to provide the preconditions for the intelligibility of the knowledge claims you make. You’ve alluded to some universal spiritual “goodness” embodied in all religions
I beg your pardon, you must have mistaken me for someone else. At the root of all epistemologies lies “I think therefore I am” or some other axiom. If you do not think this is justified, come closer and let me whisper in your ear.
By the way, I have never alluded to any universal (or even particular) spiritual “goodness” embodied in any religion. Sorry pal, it ain’t me. I say let’s chuck the whole lot.
Where did we come from? Why are we here? How can we know anything? Why should we trust our sense perceptions to tell us anything about reality? What is love, where does it come from, and why is it “good?” Etc.
Oh, what grandiose questions. So fine and magnificent that most folks don’t even realize that they are incoherent questions. Simply put, formal logic can not handle fuzzy propositions. “We”, “Here”, “know”, “come from” etc are ill-defined and until you clean them up a bit these ‘questions’ are indistinguishable from nonsense. I believe I understand the point you are attempting to make but with this flowery b.s. language you are introducing a large amount of error, wiggle room or slack, that you will attempt to exploit with sleights of hands about Prime Primers and other such chaff, directly. Back up hoss.
121, I don’t know. How about YOU judge them and then let me know how that works out for all of you. I assume you have a point here but it drowned in a sea of red herrings.
122 I presume you are not quibbling with the definition of the word, which makes me 100% correct, but you are going to claim common usage or something (despite the contradiction I pointed out). Whatever.
At any rate, your religion teaches that jews killed lots of their neighbors and then jesus, and for that your god has decided that 2/3 of living israelis must die before he will clone off his son and ship him back to this little blue ball to sweep up all of the faithful and bring them back to the house (ultimate Rush Week, some might say) leaving the unsaved behind to wail gnash teeth and fight the antichrist.
some version of that.
now, you want to say that I am irrational for pointing this out? have you even read your bible?
Flaming Icarus you are going to hell. How is that for an axiom? lol
Report comment to moderator
124
This premise is not so much proven as much as it is impossible to live as though morality is relative. Sure it’s all debatable, but when it all gets down to the nitty gritty, people cannot live as though morality is relative.
You keep saying this. Repeating it over and over. never justifying it.
all morality boils down is the internal recognition that, upon some hypothetical action or situation, “I wouldn’t do that“. It has nothing to do with absolutes or ontological necessity.
so when you say, as you do next, “For anyone one to pronounce judgements upon another, they must have some moral grounding upon which to do so. , we have now resolved this dilemma. Moral grounding? I wouldn’t do that.
Taken to the rightful conclusions, an atheist would have to shut up about moral claims.
Yeah, and they used to burn them at the stake. Why don’t you take it to the rightful conclusions, instead of floating claims that you can’t even begin to support? I think this ‘rightful conclusion’ boils down to under your rubric every one has to shut up about moral claims. the pluralism inherent in even christianist moral claims suggests there is no absolute proposition at the root, only relative propositions related by common descent.
Report comment to moderator
MIM,
Thanks for your response.
What I am asserting, and I’m not sure you followed me, is that people, at least all the people I know and interact with, pretty much live and act as though morality is absolute.
This means that people can impose their moral position on other people who don’t share their position, because they believe that they have the cosmically justified mandate to do so. This is regardless of whether their absolute morality is directed by the Bible, Koran or Torah. The pragmatic extension of this is a whole lot of holy wars and jihads as people try to assert their own versions of absolute morality.
The system of morality that you adhere to is entirely relative to your belief that the Bible is the word of God. Just as a Muslim’s concept of absolute morality is relative to the Koran, and Jewish absolute morality is relative to the Torah. As much as the people you know live and act as though morality is absolute, they’ve also preselected which version of absolute morality they’re going to adhere to, live up to and believe others ought to live up to.
This premise is not so much proven as much as it is impossible to live as though morality is relative. Sure it’s all debatable, but when it all gets down to the nitty gritty, people cannot live as though morality is relative.
The absence of a cosmically bestowed morality does not mean that moral systems are not possible, or not informed by external sources such as society, culture, ethics, history and tradition (and internal sources such as empathy). The justifiability of any one culture’s moral position is really no different to the justifiability of one religion’s moral position. I don’t think absolute morality provides any solutions on this front because it just moves the goal posts further back by enabling opposing moral positions to both lay claim to cosmic authority. At which point they’d tell each other to shut up about their false moral claims.
In short, human perception overrides absolutes.
Report comment to moderator
Fl Ic said I don’t think absolute morality provides any solutions on this front because it just moves the goal posts further back by enabling opposing moral positions to both lay claim to cosmic authority. At which point they’d tell each other to shut up about their false moral claims.
That is what I was fumbling towards, but you put it more succintly. Of course the standard rejoinder here involves scotsmen.
Report comment to moderator
Indeed, Erasmus. Cue Scotsman.
Report comment to moderator
This means that people can impose their moral position on other people who don’t share their position, because they believe that they have the cosmically justified mandate to do so.
This doesn’t follow from what MIM said. His point centers on the fact that what people espouse and what they do are often times two different things. A man can sit in his ivory tower and say morality is relative, but he can’t live that way out on the street.
One can not infer a “will to power” from the statement that a man will live according to fixed moral principles, even while espousing the doctrine of relativism. But the will to power is the real basis for Holy Wars and Jihads, not the wish to spread the truth.
The system of morality that you adhere to is entirely relative to your belief that the Bible is the word of God. Just as a Muslim’s concept of absolute morality is relative to the Koran, and Jewish absolute morality is relative to the Torah. As much as the people you know live and act as though morality is absolute, they’ve also preselected which version of absolute morality they’re going to adhere to, live up to and believe others ought to live up to.
Aren’t you confusing “ethics” with “morality” here? What you say makes perfect sense in terms of a man’s ethics, which tend to reflect group consensus concerning right and wrong behavior. However, those who espouse the doctrine of absolute morality affirm that real moral principles transcend all cultures and faiths because they are objectively true.
Report comment to moderator
This doesn’t follow from what MIM said… A man can sit in his ivory tower and say morality is relative, but he can’t live that way out on the street.
Yeah, my answer didn’t really flow on too well. But I was actually addressing MIM’s point by making another point. That is, espousing absolute morality encounters the same “unlivibility” issues that relativistic morality allegedly incurs. (I’m assuming the accusation that moral relativists can’t “live that way out on the street” occurs because they supposedly have no grounding to judge anyone else’s moral behaviour but live as though they do have that grounding.) So my point is that moral absolutists encounter the same relativist’s problem when they come across other absolutists who claim that God gave them a different moral framework. This leaves everyone with the same relativistic quandry of having no greater authority over someone else to dictate moral directives.
However, those who espouse the doctrine of absolute morality affirm that real moral principles transcend all cultures and faiths because they are objectively true.
The idea of transcendent moral principals is one thing, the specifics of those principals is something quite different. Because how are these real moral principals known to us? Through revelations. Plural. Revelations that are found in various holy books that give different accounts of supposedly transcendent objective truth.
That’s why human understanding of absolute morality is relative to the religion/text that espouses said absolute morality.
Report comment to moderator
“That’s why human understanding of absolute morality is relative to the religion/text that espouses said absolute morality.”
Well ok then. I won’t disagree with that. I’m not saying that absolutists are proven right just because the relativists positions are incoherent within their system. I’m just saying that within their system the absolutist position is logically coherent. Obviously you have several competing absolutist positions with which you could take up, so I won’t disagree with you there.
The problem as I see it, is to discover if any of the absolutist positions are, in fact, True.
So far, I (obviously) think that the Christian position is true.
Report comment to moderator
“The pragmatic extension of this is a whole lot of holy wars and jihads as people try to assert their own versions of absolute morality.”
Please be honest here, and admit that the atheist version of “jihads” and “holy wars” have been just as, or actually, a bit worse than, the wars of the religious absolutists.
I posit that this oppression isn’t so much a problem of a world view that forces it’s own brand of morality (or lack thereof in the case of the relativist) on others, so much as it’s a human problem. I think mankind is a mixed bag, both corporately and personally. Each of us has promise of great nobility and compassion, yet each of us have within us, the propensity for evil, and the seeds of our own destruction.
In this, I think the Bible is quite probably the best descriptor of the human condition of any document in history, bar none.
Report comment to moderator
MIM,
I agree that an absolutist can live withing their system and be consistent with their absolute moral belief. Obviously I doubt the justification of that absolutist belief.
The point I probably didn’t address properly was the issue of whether people who don’t live as though morality is absolute can live consistently. But I think that the issue is actually much more multi-faceted than absolute morality vs relative morality. There are systems of objective morality that don’t stem from divine revelation but aren’t, as such, relativistic either. So I think there’s a false dichotomy to assume that if one isn’t a theist (moral absolutist), they’d be a moral relativist.
So assuming atheists and agnostics are moral relativists is commiting a straw man fallacy.
Please be honest here, and admit that the atheist version of “jihads” and “holy wars” have been just as, or actually, a bit worse than, the wars of the religious absolutists.
My point wasn’t to get into the proverbial body-count contest, it was to say that absolutism that confronts absolutism cannot justifiably “win” its position by appeals to a greater authority, because both positions make a similar appeal (which is relative to their code of absolute morality). Which is not a whole lot different from relativism confronting relativism which appeals to subjective justifications.
This, of course, isn’t proof that any absolutist position isn’t true, but it is an explanation of how absolutist positions can encounter the same problem that absolutists accuse non-absolutists of encountering.
Report comment to moderator
“So assuming atheists and agnostics are moral relativists is commiting a straw man fallacy.”
I’d have to disagree with this. I can’t see atheists and agnostics logically coming up with an “objective” ethical system. It’s never been explained to my satisfaction anyway. An “objective” viewpoint cannot have it’s genesis in a finite, imperfect person, or even a body of such persons.
“My point wasn’t to get into the proverbial body-count contest, it was to say that absolutism that confronts absolutism cannot justifiably “win” its position by appeals to a greater authority, because both positions make a similar appeal (which is relative to their code of absolute morality)”
Well, yeah, that’s kind of what I was admitting. And that’s why I said that the trick was establishing which one of those absolutist positions was the correct one. If one can do that, of course you could then appeal to the Higher Authority.
Report comment to moderator
I can’t see atheists and agnostics logically coming up with an “objective” ethical system.
I suspect there may be a difference in understanding of “objective” at this point. Perhaps. Objective doesn’t mean absolute, nor does it mean perfect.
There’s a fair amount of literature on the net about objective morality (and I admit I haven’t read a whole lot of it) and there’s a fair amount that criticises the idea of absolute morality too. I’ll see if I can find some links that will provide better explanations, but I gotta run to work now!
And that’s why I said that the trick was establishing which one of those absolutist positions was the correct one. If one can do that, of course you could then appeal to the Higher Authority.
Yes, I’d agree that if one could be established as the correct one then yes, you’d have an authoritive position. But, you know what my response to that would be…
Report comment to moderator
Well I take it that somehow the argument about what would, or would not be “objective” revolves around a definition that is sorta, somewhat, pseudo objective rather than totally or absolutely objective.
Yes. I’ve already assumed what your response to the authoritative position would be.
Report comment to moderator
Make It Man at #135: I’d have to disagree with this. I can’t see atheists and agnostics logically coming up with an “objective” ethical system. It’s never been explained to my satisfaction anyway. An “objective” viewpoint cannot have it’s genesis in a finite, imperfect person, or even a body of such persons.
And yet, all viewpoints have exactly this genesis.
I realize that you are speaking under the assumption that the Bible has a divine genesis. But at least admit that you believe this; you do not know it. And as you and Icarus have established, there are a number of other religious traditions that have their own books that they also believe to have a divine genesis.
Ultimately, the decision to take the Bible, or any other holy book, as revealed and authoritative, is a decision that rests on human reasoning as much as any other. You — in your flawed and fallible human mind — make the choice to take the Bible as such. It is not self-evidently true.
Report comment to moderator
“And yet, all viewpoints have exactly this genesis.”
Aye there’s the rub… But y’know…
…you don’t really know this either, you just believe it – since, as you say, it is not self evidently true.
Can you prove that the Bible’s Genesis is not from God?
I would also have to argue with your concept of “knowledge”. Musing and I have had many a discussion about this subject, which quickly becomes onesided. (Because Musing goes down so many rabbit trails, and asks an interminable amount of questions that one never has time to think of fully in order to make a coherent answer.)
Presently I think I agree with Polanyi’s concept that knowledge is personal. We “know” things because we act upon unprovable assumptions.
If this is the case, then the western “objective/subjective” duality is a false one. There should be no huge dividing line between what we “know” about the hard sciences, and the arts and humanities. In order to “know” the hard sciences, we act upon unprovable assumptions each day, almost every second of the day. Unfortunately this fact is glossed over, swept under the rug, or ignored fully. It is the unacknowledged elephant in the room of the empericists.
Report comment to moderator
MIM,
Objective means relating (yes, relating as in relative) to what is real. It is context and situationally based and doesn’t deal with abstract absolutes, which aren’t dependent on contextualisation.
Some sites that can explain Objective morality better than I can are:
The Atlas Society.
The case for Objectivist morality.
Moral relativism and objectivism.
I’m not saying that I agree with all the objectivist positions, but I’m just linking the sites to show that some people hold to objective standards that don’t rely on appeals to Divine authority.
Report comment to moderator
Flaming,
Thanks for the links, I’ll check them out if I get a chance this lunch hour.
I do have a problem with that definition of the word though, so I looked it up, and here are what I think are the pertinent definitions from dictionary.com:
ob·jec·tive – Pronunciation Key [uhb-jek-tiv] –noun
5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
6. intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
7. being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective).
8. of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.
—Synonyms 1. object, destination, aim. 5. impartial, fair, impersonal, disinterested.
—Antonyms 5. personal.
Report comment to moderator
I would posit that your definition is in direct opposition to what we normally mean by “objective”. To be objective usually means taking the personal (or relational) and situational out of the equation. Since this is inherent in your definition, I’d have to say that these folks are right back at square one, because their “objectivity”, isn’t – it’s relative.
Report comment to moderator
MIM,
Point 8 from your dictionary clearly affirms the idea that “objective” is “of objects”. Take objective units of measure like the astronomical unit. It’s an objective unit of measure that is based on, related to, two objects in our solar system, the sun and the earth. This unit of measure is objective in those ways dictionary.com lists, and relies on the reality of the objects (”dealing with things external to the mind” def. 6) upon which the objective unit of measure is based.
Objective morality treats moral principals as another “part of reality” that is “independent of thought or an observer” (quotes from definition 8).
And if you take the situation out of the morality equation, then there is no longer any context (that is, real interplay of objects) in discussion, so how can you have an objective pronouncement without any context? How do you determine an astronomical unit without a sun and earth?
Report comment to moderator
I think the Biblical view is that human beings come prewired with an objective moral sense. This would be our universal human experience, not restricted to any particular religion or atheism.
At the same time, children come with a sense of moral relativism, which as mature adults, we grow out of it.
We know right from wrong, and I believe, most human beings share a common pallet of moral sensibilities. We know injustice when it happens to us.
Jesus summarized his ethics in the statement, “Treat others the same way you want them to treat you.” His advice presupposes that we all share a common universal set of ideas concerning how one ought to be treated; such that, I can be safe to use my own innate moral sense as a guide for how I ought to treat others.
Moral relativism shows its ugly head in terms of how we judge the behavior of others relative to how we judge our own behavior. Typically, to my shame, I will tend to condemn you when you inflict injustice on me; but I will excuse my behavior when I inflict injustice on you.
In fact, the morally mature among us carry a set of balanced scales by which a man measures himself with the same measure he weighs another man.
Report comment to moderator
As I think about this further Flaming, I think I’m wrong in #142. I’ll have to think even more to have a coherent response though…
Report comment to moderator
No worries, Make it Man. I think “objective” and “absolute” are oftentimes used interchangeably, but that obfuscates the differences between the words.
I know that there are (negative) critiques of Objectivist morality out there. I might see if I can find some.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!