This is a blog to discuss philosophy, chess, politics,
C. S. Lewis, or whatever it is that I'm in the mood to discuss.
Thursday, May 02, 2013
There. Somebody said it!
Exactly what people swear up and down that Dawkins never said. Somehow—and this will never happen, of course—it should be illegal to indoctrinate children with religious belief.- Jerry Coyne
It is becoming increasingly clear and evidently obvious that to come to a greater understanding of what constitutes morality and moral behaviour we must look deeper and wider than the religious paradigm. Reason dictates that the origin of morality, and human behaviour that defines morality, do not reside and are not the preserve of some ineffable cosmic intelligence inhabiting a netherworld.
For the most part contemporary philosophy is seeking to de-couple the underlying basis for morality from the domain of religious hegemony. A very good recap of current scholarship, placing the study of ethics and morality on an empirical footing can be found HERE at the Stanford site. In part it reads: "A philosophically informed empirical research program akin to the one just described is more than a methodological fantasy. Led by Knobe (2003a, b, forthcoming) and associates, a number of philosophers have recently begun, in consort with their colleagues in psychology departments, to empirically investigate the “folk morality” of everyday life .... While this research is in its infancy, philosophically striking results have already been identified."
In respect of religious implications in the study of morality, the paper notes: "Richard Brandt, who was a pioneer in the effort to integrate ethical theory and the social sciences, looked primarily to anthropology to help determine whether moral attitudes can be expected to converge under idealized circumstances. It is of course well known that anthropology includes a substantial body of work, such as the classic studies of Westermarck (1906) and Sumner (1934), detailing the radically divergent moral outlooks found in cultures around the world. But as Brandt (1959: 283–4) recognized, typical ethnographies do not support confident inferences about the convergence of attitudes under ideal conditions, in large measure because they often give limited guidance regarding how much of the moral disagreement can be traced to disagreement about factual matters that are not moral in nature, such as those having to do with religious or cosmological views."
The seminal work of Dr Sam Harris, in his book, The Moral Landscape", takes this empirical research a step further and builds a ground-breaking paradigm in which morality and moral behaviour can transit from its 'folk morality' origins to the level of a discipline in its own right.
"@Dan Gillson Okay, my apologies. I'll stop feeding the troll."
Translation: Defense system engaged. Execute diversionary tactic 293. Shift the burden of proof. Do not allow the infidel to see vacuity of the claims.
im-skeptical: yes, the arrogance is off-putting on either side. Especially stupid are those who respond to every argument of the atheist with "Well you have no basis to evaluate or judge anything because you are an atheist, so we can just ignore everything you say." That is just stupid, and such people should be ignored, and you should ignore what they say because they are throwing out red herrings, not engaging.
Zach You say: "The claim I would make to an atheist is that If God exists and has such and such properties, then we have a decent ontological basis for moral claims (construed in realist terms)."
That does indeed sound reasonable. There is, however, the elephant in the room. The ontological basis of the argument is completely predicated on the conditional "If". Under that condition the claim becomes highly problematic and even moot simply because the existence of said formless ethereal [putatively] live entity has never reached the threshold of what one would normally construe as evidence, fact or proofs, despite millennia of apologetical rhetoric and hyperbole. And the question to challenge Christian argument for said entity, would Christians also concede the existence of Ganesha, the Hindu God with elephant head, as an entity entirely consistent with bestowing moral goodness? He was the remover of obstacles to life and spirituality. Apparently a billion Hindus ardently believe so.
Bob "The one thing you got right is "pity". I do indeed pity someone so devoid of intellect, so wrapped up in his thought-proof security blanket of faux reason and pretended scientific knowledge, so demonstrably incapable of processing external data. I do pity someone who sees the wisdom in Wikipedia and fails to see it in the New Testament. And I really pity someone who has sacrificed so much of his time and energy to such a bankrupt cause as yours."
I love it. They are beautiful words, nicely constructed and with feeling no less.
Bob "Well, I for one have no problem with Ganesha, as you already know from past exchanges, Papalinton."
Of course not, Bob. Because Ganesha does not figure into or impact in any way on your worldview. It is so easy to declare you have no problem because the concept has no merit and is of no value to the Catholic worldview.
I wonder what the response from catholics would be if Pope Frankie, suddenly declared to the world at a future Easter mass that he had a revelation from God that Ganesha is indeed an integral figure of the Christian pantheon and all catholics are mandated by the Magisterium to offer prayer and tithe to the elephant?
Ah! The wonders of supernatural superstition. I recall Arthur Koestler, Hungarian-Jewish-British social and political philosopher: "Faith is a wondrous thing; it is not only capable of moving mountains, but also of making you believe that a herring is a race horse."
Zach My comment on the elephant in the room was a reiteration, and in some ways a confirmation, of your second paragraph. I did not make that clear in my earlier response to you.
im-skeptical "I find that the more I try to argue any point with these people, the more I run into this brick wall. And it is impossible to have any kind of reasoned discourse. I can hear the responses already ..."
That, unfortunately, is the nature of arguing with believers. How often have you heard believers say their God is unknowable? But the unknowable and the non-existent are indistinguishable. We are, as it were, shadow boxing. We are indeed boxing a shadow.
My apologies if you thought I was displaying hubris. However, I am indeed genuinely interested in moral absolution or resolution. You seem like you have an interest in epistemology. That's great! Maybe you could bring a more level head to this discussion. Contrary to what im-skeptical has imputed, I don’t want the Judea-Christian mantle to assumptively wrest this topic from scrutiny. Moreover, I'm not so much interested in that area of meta-ethics which makes me right or wrong, or even in how we come to know right or wrong, but rather in establishing the groundwork from which we can understand whether there is such a thing as right or wrong. A search for a compelling standard of moral realism, if you will. Most of us tend to introspectively perceive that we have moral justification for a particular viewpoint, but I'm wanting to find out if we can objectify such justification. Perhaps we really can't know, but I don’t think that should stop us from convening, challenging, and codifying our ideas about it.
If morality really can be undergirded by something more than existential assertion, social contract, or biological pressure, then there really isn't any air of superiority on either side since anyone, regardless of their philosophy, is capable of speaking rightly or wrongly.
What about a debate papalinton? I’ll create a series of blog posts directed to you in which I will defend two contentions:
1. New Atheists like Dawkins, Dennett and Coyne misstate and have a shallow understanding of much of natural theology as presented by its greatest exponents. 2. Therefore, their self-image of their own competency is wildly inaccurate.
Or, if that format doesn't take your fancy, what about an email exchange with a word limit? Above all, I wouldn’t want to get sidetracked, so this wouldn’t be a debate about your own particular objections to natural theology, nor the amount of material that you can copy and paste from Wikipedia, nor the role that you believe science plays in these debates.
No, it would be about this issue alone.
Now, if I could show that those two premises are true, would this cause you to reassess your own thoughts on the subject? You do think that when Dawkins and Coyne giggle about “sophisticated theology” and the alleged vacuity of traditional arguments for the existence of God they’re onto something, right? What have you to say about this idea?
Sojourner man You say: "Moreover, I'm not so much interested in that area of meta-ethics which makes me right or wrong, or even in how we come to know right or wrong, but rather in establishing the groundwork from which we can understand whether there is such a thing as right or wrong. A search for a compelling standard of moral realism, if you will. Most of us tend to introspectively perceive that we have moral justification for a particular viewpoint, but I'm wanting to find out if we can objectify such justification. Perhaps we really can't know, but I don’t think that should stop us from convening, challenging, and codifying our ideas about it."
You have crystallized what it is we are all seeking. I for one have supped from the religious cup filled with Christian moral wine. My thirst was not quenched. In part my journey traversed through other religions and at one time rested very briefly in Buddhism. It seemed, to me at least, more a philosophy than a religion. But it relied in many ways on what I deemed a concession to things supernatural; recyclic reincarnation for instance. For me, i could not let mystery, or mysticism or God's will be the justifying conclusion to things I did not understand. Beneath my polemic, I am not sure that empirical methodological investigation will give us an ultimate answer to the underlying principles and drivers of morality and moral behaviour but I have come to the conclusion that it has the best chance in progressing that investigation. Religions in the main have had a considerable run at defining and understanding these questions. We are no closer to the truth than we were when christian ethics and morality. were first promulgated. To concede that morality comes from God is to run into a brick wall. It is not an answer in my mind. The reason being, if we take an example, the Japanese are highly moral and ethical people. Generally, they know nothing of Jesus or the Christian God. And yet they exhibit highly moral and ethical behaviour. In response to this, you might say that the Christian God bestows morality on the Japanese as he does on all 'his children'. This is a claim too far, even for the least reasonable of us.
My position at this time is reflected in the comment I made at May 06, 2013 4:59 PM.
That's an interesting debate suggestion. I encourage you to keep asking it, because really, it's a perfect question in a way.
You save yourself the time of actually having to have the debate (because few, if anyone, will take your offer), while at the same time proving a point whenever you make it (because the unwillingness of anyone to accept that debate topic speaks volumes.)
Crude "You save yourself the time of actually having to have the debate (because few, if anyone, will take your offer), while at the same time proving a point whenever you make it (because the unwillingness of anyone to accept that debate topic speaks volumes.)"
Hardly. The topic Cale B T offers is not a debate (I'm assuming it's Cale's topic you refer to). What Cale is proposing is a bar brawl, blood sport or perhaps a spot of mud wrestling. The 2-point proposition is little more than an exercise in getting his rocks off against Dawkins, Dennett et al. I was under the impression the idea of these discussions was to crawl out of the mud, not a return to it. Such a proposal punts to the lowest and basest of human gutter impulses.
Just sit down and slowly re-read the two points. The second particularly, though the first is by no means any the less asinine, about the psychologizing of self-image and competence should have been a klaxon call to one's judgement of sensibility and decency and why I refrain from this proposal. I am happy to debate. And that is why I offered an alternative, something a little more scholarly. And I thought it would have been one which Cale would have accepted. He has the option of selecting from a smorgasbord of Christian theodicies that have been spawned over the centuries. That at least would have provided an advantage to him. After all, all the work has been done. For me, I would have to start from scratch, and being an atheist that I am, apparently I have no source for grounding my morality as I do not kowtow to [as Christopher Hitchens calls it] a celestial dictator that monitors your every thought and action every moment of your life ad infinitum.
You of all people ought to remember that I thoroughly enjoy and am not averse to delivering the occasional stinging rebuke to religious bottom feeders in the argie-bargie of general commentary. I don't come to this site to hold hands.
Thank you for your contribution. In my opinion, this was one of your better posts; more reflection and less deflection; more academic and less polemic.
You said: This is a claim too far, even for the least reasonable of us.
Given that your ethical ideal at the present time seems to be Humanism, and it is clearly something that you would like to bestow upon others (even upon those who you have not sired) why would it be an unreasonable "claim too far" to think that an omnipotent father figure would not want to do the same with his children? In other words, if it isn't a claim too far for you what makes it a claim too far for someone else?
I didn't think that you were displaying hubris, I thought that maybe your beliefs were. (If one can imagine such a thing.) I have so far enjoyed your thoughts and comments.
I'm glad to know the reasons for which you discuss moral philosophy. If I get you right, you're looking for the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, not for the moral fruits of actions, nor for how we tell one kind of moral fruit from another; put plainly, you're looking for the fact of knowledge of right and wrong. Is this a fair way of putting it?
Papalinton wrote clearly: eneath my polemic, I am not sure that empirical methodological investigation will give us an ultimate answer to the underlying principles and drivers of morality and moral behaviour but I have come to the conclusion that it has the best chance in progressing that investigation. Religions in the main have had a considerable run at defining and understanding these questions. We are no closer to the truth than we were when christian ethics and morality. were first promulgated. To concede that morality comes from God is to run into a brick wall.
This is a valid concern that a reflective Christian needs to grapple with. That said, if we already had the truth, then we were already close to it but you didn't see it. That is a possibility. You had the right theory, but didn't even know it. Like early dismissals of plate tectonic theory because people didn't realize just how powerful it was.
I agree that the debate topic is stupid, and these people that act as if refusing to debate something is some kind of concession. They are just silly. Crude, of course, simply sees it as a way to score a rhetorical point, so by all means the original suggestion should just keep being repeated. Why discuss debate topic, just keep going with the first impression and stick to it, brain as flexible as a tree stuck in one place.
Crude's motto: when it comes to interpreting others, it is better to perseverate than to let a conversation evolve and move forward. Just keep repeating yourself, and eventually the other person will leave.
Crude, of course, simply sees it as a way to score a rhetorical point, so by all means the original suggestion should just keep being repeated.
Zach, you are correct: I clearly do see it as a way to score a rhetorical point. It helps establish, clearly and quickly, that not only is the main Cult of Gnu leadership ignorant of a broad field they like to attack and dismiss, but that their admirers know they are ignorant yet refuse to admit it. There's a few things going on there, rhetoric is clearly in play.
The weird thing is, you act like scoring a rhetorical point is some kind of bad thing - even while clumsily, desperately trying to score some of your own.
But hey, you said that the debate topic is stupid - so let's hear why. Is it because we can't evaluate the competency of Dawkins, etc, on natural theology? Because their actually understanding something they criticize and dismiss doesn't matter?
Or is it because you think it's really, really important that a known liar and plagiarist be given a debate topic of a sort you personally find engaging?
By the way, the talk about 'ignorance of natural theology' is absolutely golden in light of that link. There's another reason Linton recoiled from that debate: it's not just that the Cult of Gnu leadership have a rotten understanding of natural theology. It's that Linton does too. That's exactly why he needed to plagiarize to begin with.
Oops. Looks like I just scored more rhetorical points, Zach. Please, deploy that logic fist and show me that Linton did not, in fact, plagiarize.
Sojourner man You ask: "Given that your ethical ideal at the present time seems to be Humanism, and it is clearly something that you would like to bestow upon others (even upon those who you have not sired) why would it be an unreasonable "claim too far" to think that an omnipotent father figure would not want to do the same with his children? In other words, if it isn't a claim too far for you what makes it a claim too far for someone else?
I have given this conundrum a lot of thought over the years. There are a number of highly problematic 'givens', if you will, that seem to have skimmed though the net without due scrutiny and explanation; 'omnipotent father figure'. What does the concept even mean in easily understood terms? What IS an' omnipotent father figure'? What is its closest analogical representation; A father that has passed away but continues to influence and intervene long after being dead, a sort of great, great, great grandfather who one never knew but continues to influence and intervene as fathers are want do in one's daily life [as in the case of the Japanese. The Japanese have never known this father but HE has bestowed upon them all their highyy ethical and moral behaviour. If God is indeed the father to the Japanese, then why has he not told them personally? Unless of course HE is a father to them only by virtue of being a sperm donor]; A divorced father [doesn't have custody but influences their everyday lives]; An absentee father [keep in mind his divine hiddenness], certainly not in the mould of Classical Theism. Read HERE. Of note in the article, the Classical Theist God [of Catholics] " is devoid of any anthropomorphic qualities". That rules out any 'father figure' imagery. Unless of course you subscribe to the Personalist Theist model of Plantinga or Swinburne or even again WLC. The contrast could not be starker So the question I ask myself, which is it? What kind of imagery best represents the 'omnipotent father figure that is of any substantive value?
Ben Yachov, a regular commenter on this site best explains the difference: "A Purely Actual Immutable God is more living and worthy of worship then some Cosmic Incompetent Space buffoon Theistic Personalist jerk off who is just a disembodied human only more Godlike in it's stupidity. From now on the true Classic Theistic God will be called Him. The Theistic Personalist "god" will be called it or jerk wade." Read his comment HERE about 4 comments in.
CONT. The concept of an 'omnipotent father figure' sounds plausible but is meaningless. It is what Dennett has coined, a 'deepity'.
"A deepity is a proposition that seems to be profound because it is actually logically ill-formed. It has (at least) two readings and balances precariously between them. On one reading it is true but trivial. And on another reading it is false, but would be earth-shattering if true." Example Dennett gives the statement "love is just a word" as an example of a deepity. Read literally, this is true: the word "love" is the written (and spoken) representation of the emotion it is meant to describe, and thus "love" is merely a word. But, by definition, this is true of every word. So if the statement is read this way, it is trivial and uninteresting. But if the statement were read to mean that the emotion described by the word "love" is itself just a word, that statement would be profound if it were true. But what we call "love" is a complex emotional state which involves more than a simple descriptive label. Under this reading, the statement isn't true. So the statement is not profound. It appears to be profound only because readers attribute the profoundness of the second reading (under which the statement is false) to the truth of the first reading (where it is trivial). A deepity, therefore, is a statement which lacks any actual profoundness, but due to this problem appears profound."
To my mind an 'omnipotent father figure' is a deepity.
Wow Crude, so because you have some other issues with him from unrelated blog posts, people should just pester him with shit pellets. Great idea. How about this: stop stalking him.
Ple-e-e-e-ase don't get me wrong here. I have nothing against YOU (other than the one yet unresolved bone of contention that has been well expressed elsewhere). What I DO object to is your seeming inability to move beyond your fixed positions, even when shown to be in complete error. Those are the times when you've seen me exasperated. Not because you're "getting to me" (you have yet to do so), but because I marvel at how dense you can be at times.
But I'd still love to share a round with you. You are amazingly wrongheaded, but probably under all that atheist veneer still a decent guy. But I don't travel anymore, so with you being in the antipodes, I guess that's not gonna happen this side of the Jordan...
(I still have one big trip I wish/hope to make here on Earth, but that's to the Atacama Desert in Chile - not to Australia.)
Wow Crude, so because you have some other issues with him from unrelated blog posts
Logic fist ain't coming this time, I take it? Pity. I was hoping to see some desperate attempt to insist Linton did not in fact plagiarize.
See, it's not 'other issues' from 'unrelated blog posts'. Linton was exposed as a liar and a plagiarist. Caught red-handed, really. And once someone's exposed as intellectually dishonest (and in this case, not just thoroughly ignorant of the topic he was discussing, but *knowingly* ignorant), what's the point of taking them seriously anymore? Or really, with wasting time engaging them?
That's why the 'stalking him!' charge is hilarious. Unlike most other people on this site, I simply do not respond to him except when others bring him up. I haven't in quite a while (months, in fact), because I actually mean it when I say he's just not worth the time, and that's not about to changing. When caught red handed he'll apologize on condition you immediately act as if he hasn't been caught lying and plagiarizing. You must never mention it again, despite it being painfully obvious that this was not a singular event, but part of a pattern.
Either way, Zach, my point is clearly made. Cale's proposed debate was a smart choice, and it has rhetorical value. Your whining about it in an attempt to defend your Cult of Gnu friend, fell flat. I'm sure this revelation will lead to yet another round of frantic, angry name calling and expletives on your part.
Once your blood pressure lowers and you wipe the sweat from your brow, I once again make an offer - come to my blog. Post in the open thread. Let's work out your problems with me. It'll save you from more outbursts, even if you disagree with me.
"Or is it because you think it's really, really important that a known liar and plagiarist be given a debate topic of a sort you personally find engaging? "
And with an immediate apology:
"Yes Crude. It is correct that I took those words from here as you say. I apologise. Firstly, I was lazy, secondly, I knew you would surely catch me, and thirdly, I had lost concern for being found out. It will be the cross I will have to bear. Now we both have skeletons in the cupboard although my cupboard door is open for inspection. I blogged as a means of mitigating my disdain for religious nonsense. That disdain remains but I no longer feel any anger or slow burn. I am reminded of Jules Feiffer, winner of the Pulitzer Prize in 1986: "Christ died for our sins. Dare we make his martyrdom meaningless by not committing them?" To my old sparring partners, Ben Yachov, Bob Prokop, cl, Rank Sophist, Ilion, Victor Reppert, and to you, Crude, [I'm sorry to those I may have missed] may all the best be with you and yours into the future. Cheers Linton Wilson"
There is no Christian bone in crude. "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." John 8:7. To him, this is all just pious rhetoric to be applied among Christians only. So much for Christian ethics and morality.
Bob "But I'd still love to share a round with you. You are amazingly wrongheaded, but probably under all that atheist veneer still a decent guy."
You betchya. As indeed I have iterated on any number of occasions of your decency. Yes we do have differences, but only our perspective on worldviews. It is quite likely my wife and I may visit the US in the not too distant future. I'll take you up on that round.
Yes, he's a stalker. This is not the first time he has posted that comment about me. I couldn't be bothered chasing it up but if anyone is willing to take up the investigation, one need only go back to 27 September 2012, either on Feser's site or this site of Victor's.
Zach I refer to your, "This is a valid concern that a reflective Christian needs to grapple with. That said, if we already had the truth, then we were already close to it but you didn't see it. That is a possibility. You had the right theory, but didn't even know it. Like early dismissals of plate tectonic theory because people didn't realize just how powerful it was."
Did I not see the truth when 'we were already close to it' in the same sense that 5 or 6 billion other people on this earth do not see or cannot see the christian truth although its been on this planet for some 2,000 years? Or is it that when I was a Christian I did not shut my eyes tightly enough and crossed my fingers behind my back to intellectively spot the Christian truth? If the former is the case, then what is the explanation for this universal Christian truth not pervading every living human today? If the latter case, then why such diverse and contradictory opinion within the Christian tent alone, let alone an atheist's perspective, and why are people rejecting it as they eschew the very institutions that trade in this 'truth'? The trends in Europe, Canada, indeed most of the Western world speaks of a search for a different model of morality than the theistic one.
I'm not a dealer in possibilities. Probability is the more robust of the two concepts. If you are a dealer in possibilities it is highly likely that you will believe, as fact, that a putrescent 3-day old corpse physically revivified and floated, as if a helium-filled balloon, into the blue beyond to heaven knows where. :o) That to me is not an explanation.
As usual, Crude misses the elementary logical points. Papalinton is making argment X here, but Crude seeks to defuse it by saying that Papalinton is a known liar. That is about as textbook bad counterargument as you can get. lmao. Stepping deep into the Crud. Logic fists not even needed here, don't flatter yourself I've got 9/10 of my intellect tied behind my back...u make it 2 easy, oh black knight. You are not a gadfly, you are a stinkbug.
Papalinton just stick with my blog I will convince you that materialism hasn't a leg to stand on, if you give my arguments a chance. So far it's just propaedeutics there, but over the next year will be the heavy stuff.
I'm wanting to explore the notion of whether the tree exists at all; and later, it if indeed exists, what we can know about its fruit. Do they have to be sweet for all? Or can they be bitter too?
As I see it, this is fundamentally an ontic consideration but others have tried hard to resolve it outside of that philosophical milieu. Can we ground our values in our passions, ala Kierkegaard, in mutually constrained contracts like Kagan, or in our inalienable rights and duties akin to Kant? Then again, can the shroud of this KKK of moral vim be defrocked? In my opinion, these are important but difficult considerations, and they can make us look like knights or knaves. But if these questions really are so difficult to resolve, then what hope is there for the knight or for the knave?
As usual, Crude misses the elementary logical points. Papalinton is making argment X here, but Crude seeks to defuse it by saying that Papalinton is a known liar. That is about as textbook bad counterargument as you can get.
Poor reading comprehension as usual, Zachary?
I nowhere - not anywhere - engaged Linton's arguments, because I do not engage Linton, period. I endorsed Cale's debate request, justified my endorsement (I love the whole 'You're just making a rhetorical point!' move - no duh, Zach), and explained why I don't bother taking Linton seriously: he's a known liar and a plagiarist, and this is a pattern with him. At no point did I say his arguments were wrong because of who he is - you really need to learn what ad hominem is.
He is ignorant, Zach, and a liar to boot. So hey, you two have a lot in common.
Logic fists not even needed here, don't flatter yourself I've got 9/10 of my intellect tied behind my back
While I agree you argue like an intellectual cripple, this isn't you at 1/10th capacity. This is you, giving it your all. Paraphrasing Bart Simpson, you try your damndest, you do the best you can do - and you still fail.
Papalinton just stick with my blog I will convince you that materialism hasn't a leg to stand on, if you give my arguments a chance. So far it's just propaedeutics there, but over the next year will be the heavy stuff.
Yeah. Zach's been around here for months now, possibly years, but he'll bring an argument to the table someday.
Annnny minute now.
(Maybe next year.)
Priceless, Zach. Thanks for the laughs as ever. At this point, there's one real question that is tough for me to decide: should you be more embarrassed at your association with Linton? Or should Linton be more embarrassed at his association with yourself?
Tough call!
I'll leave you with the last word for now, Zach - God knows, you need it. ;)
I think you might be focusing too much on one specific detail instead of the substance of my previous comment – the proverbial tree instead of the forest. Using the expression "omnipotent father figure" was simply a way of proffering a filial relation to God, for the sake of argument. If you don't like those terms then substitute it for any authoritative figure you like. But the question still remains. If you believe you have justification when persuading others to your ethical system, why would God (if he exists), or anyone else, not have the same rights that you have accorded to yourself? Is this really a "claim too far" as you stated earlier?
Zach 'Papalinton just stick with my blog I will convince you that materialism hasn't a leg to stand on, if you give my arguments a chance. So far it's just propaedeutics there, but over the next year will be the heavy stuff."
I look forward to it. Give it your best shot. For me, metaphysical naturalism seems most likely to be ground zero around which all other philosophical permutations supervene. Much of current debate seems largely to be conducted at the periphery. Naturalism has a long and and illustrious pedigree, from the earliest of presocratic philosophers Anaxagoras, Thales along with the atomist Democritus. Epicurus, in no small measure characterised the reality of naturalism, labelled by his contemporaries [IIRC] as a 'physico' [ ;o) ].
Following humanity's overlong and soul-draining hiatus dabbling in the curiosity of Christian supernaturalism, metaphysical naturalism has again emerged the stronger contender grounding our understanding of ourselves, our environment, the world, the universe, the cosmos and even, dare I say it, about gods of all shapes, flavours and persuasions. From the time the Enlightenment period witnessed the natural cleaving of science from theology as a philosophical pursuit in its own right, underpinned as it were by methodological naturalism, metaphysical naturalism has taken us into the 21stC, in even healthier shape despite the overhang of religious supernatural superstition [exemplified in the Fesers and the Plantingas]. Much if not most of contemporary philosophy is underpinned by metaphysical naturalism.
But I await the non-materialist 'shock and awe' you are about to deliver.
"Using the expression "omnipotent father figure" was simply a way of proffering a filial relation to God, for the sake of argument."
Sorry, Sojourner, I don't buy it. The OFF analogy is more than just an expression. That is what Christians predicate their whole personal relationship with God around. To suggest otherwise, for the sake of argument, is not a good look to what actually occurs in ritual in any church in the land and in prayer at home.
As Dr David Eller, foremost anthropologist aphorizes: 'Theists sometimes say that their God is possible. But no one goes to church to worship a possibility."
It is not for me to substitute. I reiterate Dr John Shelby Spong what he believes, as a devout and committed christian, is necessary for followers of Jesus to grapple with, otherwise fade into irrelevancy: Dr Spong's Twelve Points 1. Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God-talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found. 2. Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So the Christology of the ages is bankrupt. 3. The Biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense. 4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes Christ's divinity, as traditionally understood, impossible. 5. The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity. 6. The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed. 7. Resurrection is an action of God. Jesus was raised into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history. 8. The story of the Ascension assumed a three-tiered universe and is therefore not capable of being translated into the concepts of a post-Copernican space age. 9. There is no external, objective, revealed standard written in scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behavior for all time. 10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way. 11. The hope for life after death must be separated forever from the behavior control mentality of reward and punishment. The Church must abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behavior. 12. All human beings bear God's image and must be respected for what each person is. Therefore, no external description of one's being, whether based on race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation, can properly be used as the basis for either rejection or discrimination.
I might add he is certainly not the lone voice among Christians calling for a change albeit not a sweeping as he proposes, but change nonetheless.
It really isn't about supposing this or that, for the sake of argument. It is about to go forward from here.
Sojourner Yes, my previous response is incomplete. Justification? Only as much as any other citizen in the public square. Whether anyone wishes to acknowledge or abide the ethical system I subscribe to, is up to the individual and a matter for their personal consideration together with how well I practice the art of persuasion. One thing I do try to do is ground it in the reality of our natural existence in this world. I do not subscribe to relinquishing the origins of our morality to a [putative] supernatural agent not forfeit the responsibility and conduct of our behaviour to the primitive notion of congenital 'original sin'. This is folklore gone feral. And until someone comes up with substantiating the existence of gods, and confirmation of the causal effects of original sin, I will pass at this stage.
God doesn't have any rights because he is not a registered voter. As far as anyone else is concerned, their rights, your rights, have not been compromised by my advocacy for a more reasonable empirically-based moral code.
I can't help but notice what seems to be an existential conundrum in your response, though. For if your justification is "only as much as any other citizen in the public square", how do you or I escape relativizing our own views while evaluating another's? For instance, if each citizen's own values purportedly justify their own judgements, how do we judge the values of someone else without also being justifiably judged by the other?
It would seem that this view better lends itself to moral pluralism, in which case value judgements would lack any corporate extension. Or is the best we can hope to achieve just personal satisfaction through finger pointing? Tough questions...
Zach "Much of current debate seems largely to be conducted at the periphery."
I do hanker for an edit button. The above sentence refers to, and I shall edit it thus:
"Much of current debate between naturalism and supernaturalism seems largely to be conducted at the periphery of philosophy, in blogs like Feser's. One need only read of his despair and discomfort with modern philosophy. A good place to review this relationship would be his book, TLS. A-T philosophy and the pining for Medieval Scholasticism are two philosophical positions with little traction outside theological circles."
Sojourner "[H]ow do you or I escape relativizing our own views while evaluating another's? For instance, if each citizen's own values purportedly justify their own judgements, how do we judge the values of someone else without also being justifiably judged by the other? "
We are free to exercise our judgements up to the threshold of what constitutes the rule of law. For example, if a couple for whatever reason in privacy of consultation with their physician conclude that they are to have an abortion, they are free to exercise their judgement within the rule of law. That does not impinge one iota on you and your wife exercising your free judgement not to have an abortion. A resort to blowing up family clinics and shooting doctors in church is not a judgement that should be encouraged, by anyone. If Roe v Wade is to be amended or repealed it must be through the democratic argie-bargie of the ballot box. The rule of law, together with democracy, however open to compromise it is, is still the best forum in which justification of our judgements are held up to on-going public scrutiny. As Winston Churchill once remarked, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
The rule of law as we know it, is the overt expression of our moral judgements as a community. Nothing could be more illustrative of the success of this process than the almost overwhelming support by the community, from both religious and non-believers alike, of the acceptance and acknowledgement of the need to codify the rights and the exercise of free choice of gays to marry into the legislative framework the defines the rule of law.
Sojourner, you say, "[H]ow do you or I escape relativizing our own views while evaluating another's?"
Why would you want to escape relativizing? In and of itself it is not a bad thing. But having asked that, the extent to which one can relativize is right up to, but not across, the boundary that defines the rule of law.
There is so much more than can be added. A blog is not an appropriate forum.
Corrigendum "The rule of law as we know it, is the overt expression of our moral judgements as a community. Nothing could be more illustrative of the success of this process than the almost overwhelming support by the community, from both religious and non-believers alike, of the acceptance and acknowledgement of the need to codify the rights and the exercise of free choice of gays to marry into the legislative framework the defines the rule of law."
should read:
"The rule of law as we know it, is the overt expression of our moral judgements as a community. Nothing could be more illustrative of the success of this process than the almost overwhelming support by the community, from both religious and non-believers alike, of the acceptance and acknowledgement of the need to codify the rights and the exercise of free choice of gays to marry, into the very legislative framework that defines the rule of law."
Interesting points. Unless I have misread you, commonly accepted community standards represent the well of positive value judgements from which we should drink.
If, as you say, one is free to exercise their "judgements up to the threshold of what constitutes the rule of law", what of rules of law shaped within a different socio-cultural context than your own? Moreover, if one's judgemental threshold is bounded by "moral judgements as a community", does this mean that one is never freely justified in exercising a contrary judgement? If not free, then it would seem that the moral enterprise is held hostage to mobocracy. Yet if they are in fact free, how can it be said that we are free to exercise "judgements up to the threshold of what constitutes the rule of law"?
"if we take an example, the Japanese are highly moral and ethical people"
I've only been to Japan once, but I am a huge fan of Japanese cinema (just last night I watched Koreeda's I Wish, and Ozu is my all-time favorite director), and their movies are absolutely soaked in Shintoism, Taoism, and Buddhism. I imagine this must be at least some small reflection of actual societal attitudes. I don't think Linton can claim Japan as an atheistic culture.
Sojourner "If, as you say, one is free to exercise their "judgements up to the threshold of what constitutes the rule of law", what of rules of law shaped within a different socio-cultural context than your own?"
That's the $64 question. Therein lies the commonality we all share beyond the different socio-cultural contexts. With continuing globalisation precipitated by mass communication and rapid transportation very few significantly sizable groups of people are more than a few hours away from each other, perhaps less than a day anywhere in the world. And with the speed, depth and breadth of personal communications unbounded by geography, something must give. If humanity is to mix freely and safely, we must look to more universal models of relationships. Nations states are binding into regional geo-political co-operative alliances with common goals of free trade, free exchange of education, goods etc through free trade agreements and a myriad of other interwoven bilateral, multilaterally and mutually agreed terms of human engagement be it economic, trade, social, sporting etc. The days of sovereign nation states are reaching their use-by date as larger conglomerations of countries merge to take advantage of the economies of scale. Picture NAFTA, or the EEC or APEC as fore-runners of conglomerate states of different peoples sharing common interests.
In place of these changed social and economic relationships, interdependence becomes the new operant paradigm between peoples of varied groups. Along with that immanent change, comes the pressure[?], for want of a better word, for a much more inclusive and wider participatory social order. In the interim, to overlay the existing country-specific, socio-cultural differences, it seems a supervening humanist secular approach is the framework is best placed to establish a social and economic structure that plugs into this increasingly important concept of interdependence. This means picking up the best of the ethical and moral practices that in the main share one common feature and fundamental principle, that of human flourishing. See HERE.
And HERE is a most interesting little article written by Gilbert Harman of Princeton University that lends some support to encouraging our seeking a wider, perhaps global supervening moral and ethical code based on a model [I suggest a humanist secular model] that circumvents misplaced character traits, be they personal, social, religious or cultural in nature, which we [falsely as it turns out] think are irreconcilable characteristics of the 'different socio-cultural contexts'. This article seems to suggest that no such traits exist and that it is possible that different people in different groups can share a common vision of human flourishing. The task of course is to disparate groups to the table. No done deal by any stretch, but we need to continue on that journey.
Zach 'Papa, with morality the problem is you will always get hung up on some kind of cultural/biological relativism. Crude's fallacy-peddling notwithstanding, I prefer to engage with what people are presently saying rather than attack their character."
Bob Here are some statistics on religion in Japan.
"About 70% of Japanese profess no religious membership,[9][10] according to Johnstone (1993:323), 84% of the Japanese claim no personal religion. In census questionnaires, less than 15% reported any formal religious affiliation by 2000.[11] And according to Demerath (2001:138), 65% do not believe in God, and 55% do not believe in Buddha.[12] According to Edwin Reischauer, and Marius Jansen, some 70–80% of the Japanese regularly tell pollsters they do not consider themselves believers in any religion. " Wiki
Elsewhere:
"East Asian cultures define religion differently from those in the West, making classification of certain adherents of Buddhism and Taoism particularly difficult, as belief in gods is generally absent in principle in these schools of thought except in syncretic outliers to the mainstreams of the belief system."
261 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 261 of 261It is becoming increasingly clear and evidently obvious that to come to a greater understanding of what constitutes morality and moral behaviour we must look deeper and wider than the religious paradigm. Reason dictates that the origin of morality, and human behaviour that defines morality, do not reside and are not the preserve of some ineffable cosmic intelligence inhabiting a netherworld.
For the most part contemporary philosophy is seeking to de-couple the underlying basis for morality from the domain of religious hegemony. A very good recap of current scholarship, placing the study of ethics and morality on an empirical footing can be found HERE at the Stanford site. In part it reads:
"A philosophically informed empirical research program akin to the one just described is more than a methodological fantasy. Led by Knobe (2003a, b, forthcoming) and associates, a number of philosophers have recently begun, in consort with their colleagues in psychology departments, to empirically investigate the “folk morality” of everyday life .... While this research is in its infancy, philosophically striking results have already been identified."
In respect of religious implications in the study of morality, the paper notes:
"Richard Brandt, who was a pioneer in the effort to integrate ethical theory and the social sciences, looked primarily to anthropology to help determine whether moral attitudes can be expected to converge under idealized circumstances. It is of course well known that anthropology includes a substantial body of work, such as the classic studies of Westermarck (1906) and Sumner (1934), detailing the radically divergent moral outlooks found in cultures around the world. But as Brandt (1959: 283–4) recognized, typical ethnographies do not support confident inferences about the convergence of attitudes under ideal conditions, in large measure because they often give limited guidance regarding how much of the moral disagreement can be traced to disagreement about factual matters that are not moral in nature, such as those having to do with religious or cosmological views."
The seminal work of Dr Sam Harris, in his book, The Moral Landscape", takes this empirical research a step further and builds a ground-breaking paradigm in which morality and moral behaviour can transit from its 'folk morality' origins to the level of a discipline in its own right.
"@Dan Gillson
Okay, my apologies. I'll stop feeding the troll."
Translation: Defense system engaged. Execute diversionary tactic 293. Shift the burden of proof. Do not allow the infidel to see vacuity of the claims.
;o)
im-skeptical: yes, the arrogance is off-putting on either side. Especially stupid are those who respond to every argument of the atheist with "Well you have no basis to evaluate or judge anything because you are an atheist, so we can just ignore everything you say." That is just stupid, and such people should be ignored, and you should ignore what they say because they are throwing out red herrings, not engaging.
Zach
You say: "The claim I would make to an atheist is that If God exists and has such and such properties, then we have a decent ontological basis for moral claims (construed in realist terms)."
That does indeed sound reasonable. There is, however, the elephant in the room. The ontological basis of the argument is completely predicated on the conditional "If". Under that condition the claim becomes highly problematic and even moot simply because the existence of said formless ethereal [putatively] live entity has never reached the threshold of what one would normally construe as evidence, fact or proofs, despite millennia of apologetical rhetoric and hyperbole. And the question to challenge Christian argument for said entity, would Christians also concede the existence of Ganesha, the Hindu God with elephant head, as an entity entirely consistent with bestowing moral goodness? He was the remover of obstacles to life and spirituality. Apparently a billion Hindus ardently believe so.
Do you, joesmarts? Sojourner man?
Well, I for one have no problem with Ganesha, as you already know from past exchanges, Papalinton. So you are once again tossing out irrelevancies.
Bob
"The one thing you got right is "pity". I do indeed pity someone so devoid of intellect, so wrapped up in his thought-proof security blanket of faux reason and pretended scientific knowledge, so demonstrably incapable of processing external data. I do pity someone who sees the wisdom in Wikipedia and fails to see it in the New Testament. And I really pity someone who has sacrificed so much of his time and energy to such a bankrupt cause as yours."
I love it. They are beautiful words, nicely constructed and with feeling no less.
Bob
"Well, I for one have no problem with Ganesha, as you already know from past exchanges, Papalinton."
Of course not, Bob. Because Ganesha does not figure into or impact in any way on your worldview. It is so easy to declare you have no problem because the concept has no merit and is of no value to the Catholic worldview.
I wonder what the response from catholics would be if Pope Frankie, suddenly declared to the world at a future Easter mass that he had a revelation from God that Ganesha is indeed an integral figure of the Christian pantheon and all catholics are mandated by the Magisterium to offer prayer and tithe to the elephant?
Ah! The wonders of supernatural superstition. I recall Arthur Koestler, Hungarian-Jewish-British social and political philosopher:
"Faith is a wondrous thing; it is not only capable of moving mountains, but also of making you believe that a herring is a race horse."
Zach
My comment on the elephant in the room was a reiteration, and in some ways a confirmation, of your second paragraph. I did not make that clear in my earlier response to you.
im-skeptical
"I find that the more I try to argue any point with these people, the more I run into this brick wall. And it is impossible to have any kind of reasoned discourse. I can hear the responses already ..."
That, unfortunately, is the nature of arguing with believers. How often have you heard believers say their God is unknowable? But the unknowable and the non-existent are indistinguishable. We are, as it were, shadow boxing. We are indeed boxing a shadow.
Hi Dan,
My apologies if you thought I was displaying hubris. However, I am indeed genuinely interested in moral absolution or resolution. You seem like you have an interest in epistemology. That's great! Maybe you could bring a more level head to this discussion. Contrary to what im-skeptical has imputed, I don’t want the Judea-Christian mantle to assumptively wrest this topic from scrutiny. Moreover, I'm not so much interested in that area of meta-ethics which makes me right or wrong, or even in how we come to know right or wrong, but rather in establishing the groundwork from which we can understand whether there is such a thing as right or wrong. A search for a compelling standard of moral realism, if you will. Most of us tend to introspectively perceive that we have moral justification for a particular viewpoint, but I'm wanting to find out if we can objectify such justification. Perhaps we really can't know, but I don’t think that should stop us from convening, challenging, and codifying our ideas about it.
If morality really can be undergirded by something more than existential assertion, social contract, or biological pressure, then there really isn't any air of superiority on either side since anyone, regardless of their philosophy, is capable of speaking rightly or wrongly.
Sojourner
Sojourner Man ,
My apologies if I misread your earlier statements.
What about a debate papalinton? I’ll create a series of blog posts directed to you in which I will defend two contentions:
1. New Atheists like Dawkins, Dennett and Coyne misstate and have a shallow understanding of much of natural theology as presented by its greatest exponents.
2. Therefore, their self-image of their own competency is wildly inaccurate.
Or, if that format doesn't take your fancy, what about an email exchange with a word limit?
Above all, I wouldn’t want to get sidetracked, so this wouldn’t be a debate about your own particular objections to natural theology, nor the amount of material that you can copy and paste from Wikipedia, nor the role that you believe science plays in these debates.
No, it would be about this issue alone.
Now, if I could show that those two premises are true, would this cause you to reassess your own thoughts on the subject? You do think that when Dawkins and Coyne giggle about “sophisticated theology” and the alleged vacuity of traditional arguments for the existence of God they’re onto something, right?
What have you to say about this idea?
Cale B T
Better still. How about we debate something much more fundamental and universal:
"If religion cannot restrain evil, it cannot claim effective power for good."
And you may, if you choose, quote direct from the bible. And I'll bring some of the modern research to the debate.
I'd like to debate a more specific claim.
im-skeptical,
No worries. Sometimes I need to speak with more clarity and less arity.
Sojourner
Sojourner man
You say: "Moreover, I'm not so much interested in that area of meta-ethics which makes me right or wrong, or even in how we come to know right or wrong, but rather in establishing the groundwork from which we can understand whether there is such a thing as right or wrong. A search for a compelling standard of moral realism, if you will. Most of us tend to introspectively perceive that we have moral justification for a particular viewpoint, but I'm wanting to find out if we can objectify such justification. Perhaps we really can't know, but I don’t think that should stop us from convening, challenging, and codifying our ideas about it."
You have crystallized what it is we are all seeking. I for one have supped from the religious cup filled with Christian moral wine. My thirst was not quenched. In part my journey traversed through other religions and at one time rested very briefly in Buddhism. It seemed, to me at least, more a philosophy than a religion. But it relied in many ways on what I deemed a concession to things supernatural; recyclic reincarnation for instance. For me, i could not let mystery, or mysticism or God's will be the justifying conclusion to things I did not understand. Beneath my polemic, I am not sure that empirical methodological investigation will give us an ultimate answer to the underlying principles and drivers of morality and moral behaviour but I have come to the conclusion that it has the best chance in progressing that investigation. Religions in the main have had a considerable run at defining and understanding these questions. We are no closer to the truth than we were when christian ethics and morality. were first promulgated. To concede that morality comes from God is to run into a brick wall. It is not an answer in my mind. The reason being, if we take an example, the Japanese are highly moral and ethical people. Generally, they know nothing of Jesus or the Christian God. And yet they exhibit highly moral and ethical behaviour. In response to this, you might say that the Christian God bestows morality on the Japanese as he does on all 'his children'. This is a claim too far, even for the least reasonable of us.
My position at this time is reflected in the comment I made at May 06, 2013 4:59 PM.
Cale BT,
That's an interesting debate suggestion. I encourage you to keep asking it, because really, it's a perfect question in a way.
You save yourself the time of actually having to have the debate (because few, if anyone, will take your offer), while at the same time proving a point whenever you make it (because the unwillingness of anyone to accept that debate topic speaks volumes.)
Crude
"You save yourself the time of actually having to have the debate (because few, if anyone, will take your offer), while at the same time proving a point whenever you make it (because the unwillingness of anyone to accept that debate topic speaks volumes.)"
Hardly. The topic Cale B T offers is not a debate (I'm assuming it's Cale's topic you refer to). What Cale is proposing is a bar brawl, blood sport or perhaps a spot of mud wrestling. The 2-point proposition is little more than an exercise in getting his rocks off against Dawkins, Dennett et al. I was under the impression the idea of these discussions was to crawl out of the mud, not a return to it. Such a proposal punts to the lowest and basest of human gutter impulses.
Just sit down and slowly re-read the two points. The second particularly, though the first is by no means any the less asinine, about the psychologizing of self-image and competence should have been a klaxon call to one's judgement of sensibility and decency and why I refrain from this proposal. I am happy to debate. And that is why I offered an alternative, something a little more scholarly. And I thought it would have been one which Cale would have accepted. He has the option of selecting from a smorgasbord of Christian theodicies that have been spawned over the centuries. That at least would have provided an advantage to him. After all, all the work has been done. For me, I would have to start from scratch, and being an atheist that I am, apparently I have no source for grounding my morality as I do not kowtow to [as Christopher Hitchens calls it] a celestial dictator that monitors your every thought and action every moment of your life ad infinitum.
You of all people ought to remember that I thoroughly enjoy and am not averse to delivering the occasional stinging rebuke to religious bottom feeders in the argie-bargie of general commentary. I don't come to this site to hold hands.
Papalinton,
Thank you for your contribution. In my opinion, this was one of your better posts; more reflection and less deflection; more academic and less polemic.
You said:
This is a claim too far, even for the least reasonable of us.
Given that your ethical ideal at the present time seems to be Humanism, and it is clearly something that you would like to bestow upon others (even upon those who you have not sired) why would it be an unreasonable "claim too far" to think that an omnipotent father figure would not want to do the same with his children? In other words, if it isn't a claim too far for you what makes it a claim too far for someone else?
Sojourner
Sojourner Man
I didn't think that you were displaying hubris, I thought that maybe your beliefs were. (If one can imagine such a thing.) I have so far enjoyed your thoughts and comments.
I'm glad to know the reasons for which you discuss moral philosophy. If I get you right, you're looking for the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, not for the moral fruits of actions, nor for how we tell one kind of moral fruit from another; put plainly, you're looking for the fact of knowledge of right and wrong. Is this a fair way of putting it?
Papalinton wrote clearly:
eneath my polemic, I am not sure that empirical methodological investigation will give us an ultimate answer to the underlying principles and drivers of morality and moral behaviour but I have come to the conclusion that it has the best chance in progressing that investigation. Religions in the main have had a considerable run at defining and understanding these questions. We are no closer to the truth than we were when christian ethics and morality. were first promulgated. To concede that morality comes from God is to run into a brick wall.
This is a valid concern that a reflective Christian needs to grapple with. That said, if we already had the truth, then we were already close to it but you didn't see it. That is a possibility. You had the right theory, but didn't even know it. Like early dismissals of plate tectonic theory because people didn't realize just how powerful it was.
I agree that the debate topic is stupid, and these people that act as if refusing to debate something is some kind of concession. They are just silly. Crude, of course, simply sees it as a way to score a rhetorical point, so by all means the original suggestion should just keep being repeated. Why discuss debate topic, just keep going with the first impression and stick to it, brain as flexible as a tree stuck in one place.
Crude's motto: when it comes to interpreting others, it is better to perseverate than to let a conversation evolve and move forward. Just keep repeating yourself, and eventually the other person will leave.
Or you will be banned. :)
Zach,
Crude, of course, simply sees it as a way to score a rhetorical point, so by all means the original suggestion should just keep being repeated.
Zach, you are correct: I clearly do see it as a way to score a rhetorical point. It helps establish, clearly and quickly, that not only is the main Cult of Gnu leadership ignorant of a broad field they like to attack and dismiss, but that their admirers know they are ignorant yet refuse to admit it. There's a few things going on there, rhetoric is clearly in play.
The weird thing is, you act like scoring a rhetorical point is some kind of bad thing - even while clumsily, desperately trying to score some of your own.
But hey, you said that the debate topic is stupid - so let's hear why. Is it because we can't evaluate the competency of Dawkins, etc, on natural theology? Because their actually understanding something they criticize and dismiss doesn't matter?
Or is it because you think it's really, really important that a known liar and plagiarist be given a debate topic of a sort you personally find engaging?
By the way, the talk about 'ignorance of natural theology' is absolutely golden in light of that link. There's another reason Linton recoiled from that debate: it's not just that the Cult of Gnu leadership have a rotten understanding of natural theology. It's that Linton does too. That's exactly why he needed to plagiarize to begin with.
Oops. Looks like I just scored more rhetorical points, Zach. Please, deploy that logic fist and show me that Linton did not, in fact, plagiarize.
Sojourner man
You ask: "Given that your ethical ideal at the present time seems to be Humanism, and it is clearly something that you would like to bestow upon others (even upon those who you have not sired) why would it be an unreasonable "claim too far" to think that an omnipotent father figure would not want to do the same with his children? In other words, if it isn't a claim too far for you what makes it a claim too far for someone else?
I have given this conundrum a lot of thought over the years. There are a number of highly problematic 'givens', if you will, that seem to have skimmed though the net without due scrutiny and explanation; 'omnipotent father figure'. What does the concept even mean in easily understood terms? What IS an' omnipotent father figure'? What is its closest analogical representation; A father that has passed away but continues to influence and intervene long after being dead, a sort of great, great, great grandfather who one never knew but continues to influence and intervene as fathers are want do in one's daily life [as in the case of the Japanese. The Japanese have never known this father but HE has bestowed upon them all their highyy ethical and moral behaviour. If God is indeed the father to the Japanese, then why has he not told them personally? Unless of course HE is a father to them only by virtue of being a sperm donor]; A divorced father [doesn't have custody but influences their everyday lives]; An absentee father [keep in mind his divine hiddenness], certainly not in the mould of Classical Theism. Read HERE. Of note in the article, the Classical Theist God [of Catholics] " is devoid of any anthropomorphic qualities". That rules out any 'father figure' imagery. Unless of course you subscribe to the Personalist Theist model of Plantinga or Swinburne or even again WLC. The contrast could not be starker So the question I ask myself, which is it? What kind of imagery best represents the 'omnipotent father figure that is of any substantive value?
Ben Yachov, a regular commenter on this site best explains the difference: "A Purely Actual Immutable God is more living and worthy of worship then some Cosmic Incompetent Space buffoon Theistic Personalist jerk off who is just a disembodied
human only more Godlike in it's stupidity.
From now on the true Classic Theistic God will be called Him. The Theistic Personalist "god" will be called it or jerk wade." Read his comment HERE about 4 comments in.
CONT.
CONT.
The concept of an 'omnipotent father figure' sounds plausible but is meaningless. It is what Dennett has coined, a 'deepity'.
"A deepity is a proposition that seems to be profound because it is actually logically ill-formed. It has (at least) two readings and balances precariously between them. On one reading it is true but trivial. And on another reading it is false, but would be earth-shattering if true."
Example
Dennett gives the statement "love is just a word" as an example of a deepity.
Read literally, this is true: the word "love" is the written (and spoken) representation of the emotion it is meant to describe, and thus "love" is merely a word. But, by definition, this is true of every word. So if the statement is read this way, it is trivial and uninteresting.
But if the statement were read to mean that the emotion described by the word "love" is itself just a word, that statement would be profound if it were true. But what we call "love" is a complex emotional state which involves more than a simple descriptive label. Under this reading, the statement isn't true.
So the statement is not profound. It appears to be profound only because readers attribute the profoundness of the second reading (under which the statement is false) to the truth of the first reading (where it is trivial).
A deepity, therefore, is a statement which lacks any actual profoundness, but due to this problem appears profound."
To my mind an 'omnipotent father figure' is a deepity.
Oh, damn it, I can't help myself! I'll probably spend an extra year in Purgatory for this, but here goes anyway...
"and Papalinton is an intellectity!"
Wow Crude, so because you have some other issues with him from unrelated blog posts, people should just pester him with shit pellets. Great idea. How about this: stop stalking him.
Papalinton,
Ple-e-e-e-ase don't get me wrong here. I have nothing against YOU (other than the one yet unresolved bone of contention that has been well expressed elsewhere). What I DO object to is your seeming inability to move beyond your fixed positions, even when shown to be in complete error. Those are the times when you've seen me exasperated. Not because you're "getting to me" (you have yet to do so), but because I marvel at how dense you can be at times.
But I'd still love to share a round with you. You are amazingly wrongheaded, but probably under all that atheist veneer still a decent guy. But I don't travel anymore, so with you being in the antipodes, I guess that's not gonna happen this side of the Jordan...
(I still have one big trip I wish/hope to make here on Earth, but that's to the Atacama Desert in Chile - not to Australia.)
Zach,
Wow Crude, so because you have some other issues with him from unrelated blog posts
Logic fist ain't coming this time, I take it? Pity. I was hoping to see some desperate attempt to insist Linton did not in fact plagiarize.
See, it's not 'other issues' from 'unrelated blog posts'. Linton was exposed as a liar and a plagiarist. Caught red-handed, really. And once someone's exposed as intellectually dishonest (and in this case, not just thoroughly ignorant of the topic he was discussing, but *knowingly* ignorant), what's the point of taking them seriously anymore? Or really, with wasting time engaging them?
That's why the 'stalking him!' charge is hilarious. Unlike most other people on this site, I simply do not respond to him except when others bring him up. I haven't in quite a while (months, in fact), because I actually mean it when I say he's just not worth the time, and that's not about to changing. When caught red handed he'll apologize on condition you immediately act as if he hasn't been caught lying and plagiarizing. You must never mention it again, despite it being painfully obvious that this was not a singular event, but part of a pattern.
Either way, Zach, my point is clearly made. Cale's proposed debate was a smart choice, and it has rhetorical value. Your whining about it in an attempt to defend your Cult of Gnu friend, fell flat. I'm sure this revelation will lead to yet another round of frantic, angry name calling and expletives on your part.
Once your blood pressure lowers and you wipe the sweat from your brow, I once again make an offer - come to my blog. Post in the open thread. Let's work out your problems with me. It'll save you from more outbursts, even if you disagree with me.
"Or is it because you think it's really, really important that a known liar and plagiarist be given a debate topic of a sort you personally find engaging? "
And with an immediate apology:
"Yes Crude. It is correct that I took those words from here as you say.
I apologise. Firstly, I was lazy, secondly, I knew you would surely catch me, and thirdly, I had lost concern for being found out. It will be the cross I will have to bear. Now we both have skeletons in the cupboard although my cupboard door is open for inspection.
I blogged as a means of mitigating my disdain for religious nonsense. That disdain remains but I no longer feel any anger or slow burn.
I am reminded of Jules Feiffer, winner of the Pulitzer Prize in 1986:
"Christ died for our sins. Dare we make his martyrdom meaningless by not committing them?"
To my old sparring partners, Ben Yachov, Bob Prokop, cl, Rank Sophist, Ilion, Victor Reppert, and to you, Crude, [I'm sorry to those I may have missed] may all the best be with you and yours into the future.
Cheers
Linton Wilson"
There is no Christian bone in crude. "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." John 8:7. To him, this is all just pious rhetoric to be applied among Christians only. So much for Christian ethics and morality.
crude is filled with unmitigated hate.
Bob
"But I'd still love to share a round with you. You are amazingly wrongheaded, but probably under all that atheist veneer still a decent guy."
You betchya. As indeed I have iterated on any number of occasions of your decency. Yes we do have differences, but only our perspective on worldviews. It is quite likely my wife and I may visit the US in the not too distant future. I'll take you up on that round.
Zach
Yes, he's a stalker. This is not the first time he has posted that comment about me. I couldn't be bothered chasing it up but if anyone is willing to take up the investigation, one need only go back to 27 September 2012, either on Feser's site or this site of Victor's.
From the Oxford English Dictionary:
crudiage (n)
A stinking pile of red herrings that a desperate salesmen continues to insist are gold pieces.
Zach,
And now we've reached the usual part of our interactions - where, disarmed and dispatched, all you can do is swing at the air.
Always a pleasure, Zach. ;)
Zach
I refer to your, "This is a valid concern that a reflective Christian needs to grapple with. That said, if we already had the truth, then we were already close to it but you didn't see it. That is a possibility. You had the right theory, but didn't even know it. Like early dismissals of plate tectonic theory because people didn't realize just how powerful it was."
Did I not see the truth when 'we were already close to it' in the same sense that 5 or 6 billion other people on this earth do not see or cannot see the christian truth although its been on this planet for some 2,000 years? Or is it that when I was a Christian I did not shut my eyes tightly enough and crossed my fingers behind my back to intellectively spot the Christian truth? If the former is the case, then what is the explanation for this universal Christian truth not pervading every living human today? If the latter case, then why such diverse and contradictory opinion within the Christian tent alone, let alone an atheist's perspective, and why are people rejecting it as they eschew the very institutions that trade in this 'truth'? The trends in Europe, Canada, indeed most of the Western world speaks of a search for a different model of morality than the theistic one.
I'm not a dealer in possibilities. Probability is the more robust of the two concepts. If you are a dealer in possibilities it is highly likely that you will believe, as fact, that a putrescent 3-day old corpse physically revivified and floated, as if a helium-filled balloon, into the blue beyond to heaven knows where. :o) That to me is not an explanation.
I omitted to add:
That same sentiment I hold is also reflective of my thoughts and understanding of the Christian claim to sole ownership and propriety of morality.
Crude says: "Zach,
And now we've reached the usual part of our interactions - where, disarmed and dispatched, all you can do is swing at the air."
Hardly. Crude: 0 Zach: 1
As usual, Crude misses the elementary logical points. Papalinton is making argment X here, but Crude seeks to defuse it by saying that Papalinton is a known liar. That is about as textbook bad counterargument as you can get. lmao. Stepping deep into the Crud. Logic fists not even needed here, don't flatter yourself I've got 9/10 of my intellect tied behind my back...u make it 2 easy, oh black knight. You are not a gadfly, you are a stinkbug.
Papalinton just stick with my blog I will convince you that materialism hasn't a leg to stand on, if you give my arguments a chance. So far it's just propaedeutics there, but over the next year will be the heavy stuff.
Dan,
Nicely put.
I'm wanting to explore the notion of whether the tree exists at all; and later, it if indeed exists, what we can know about its fruit. Do they have to be sweet for all? Or can they be bitter too?
As I see it, this is fundamentally an ontic consideration but others have tried hard to resolve it outside of that philosophical milieu. Can we ground our values in our passions, ala Kierkegaard, in mutually constrained contracts like Kagan, or in our inalienable rights and duties akin to Kant? Then again, can the shroud of this KKK of moral vim be defrocked? In my opinion, these are important but difficult considerations, and they can make us look like knights or knaves. But if these questions really are so difficult to resolve, then what hope is there for the knight or for the knave?
Sojourner
Zach,
As usual, Crude misses the elementary logical points. Papalinton is making argment X here, but Crude seeks to defuse it by saying that Papalinton is a known liar. That is about as textbook bad counterargument as you can get.
Poor reading comprehension as usual, Zachary?
I nowhere - not anywhere - engaged Linton's arguments, because I do not engage Linton, period. I endorsed Cale's debate request, justified my endorsement (I love the whole 'You're just making a rhetorical point!' move - no duh, Zach), and explained why I don't bother taking Linton seriously: he's a known liar and a plagiarist, and this is a pattern with him. At no point did I say his arguments were wrong because of who he is - you really need to learn what ad hominem is.
He is ignorant, Zach, and a liar to boot. So hey, you two have a lot in common.
Logic fists not even needed here, don't flatter yourself I've got 9/10 of my intellect tied behind my back
While I agree you argue like an intellectual cripple, this isn't you at 1/10th capacity. This is you, giving it your all. Paraphrasing Bart Simpson, you try your damndest, you do the best you can do - and you still fail.
Papalinton just stick with my blog I will convince you that materialism hasn't a leg to stand on, if you give my arguments a chance. So far it's just propaedeutics there, but over the next year will be the heavy stuff.
Yeah. Zach's been around here for months now, possibly years, but he'll bring an argument to the table someday.
Annnny minute now.
(Maybe next year.)
Priceless, Zach. Thanks for the laughs as ever. At this point, there's one real question that is tough for me to decide: should you be more embarrassed at your association with Linton? Or should Linton be more embarrassed at his association with yourself?
Tough call!
I'll leave you with the last word for now, Zach - God knows, you need it. ;)
hey i have a good exercise for everyone
how does one define "thinking" without using the word (or a synonym) in the definition :o
*hides*
Papalinton,
I think you might be focusing too much on one specific detail instead of the substance of my previous comment – the proverbial tree instead of the forest. Using the expression "omnipotent father figure" was simply a way of proffering a filial relation to God, for the sake of argument. If you don't like those terms then substitute it for any authoritative figure you like. But the question still remains. If you believe you have justification when persuading others to your ethical system, why would God (if he exists), or anyone else, not have the same rights that you have accorded to yourself? Is this really a "claim too far" as you stated earlier?
Sojourner
Zach
'Papalinton just stick with my blog I will convince you that materialism hasn't a leg to stand on, if you give my arguments a chance. So far it's just propaedeutics there, but over the next year will be the heavy stuff."
I look forward to it. Give it your best shot. For me, metaphysical naturalism seems most likely to be ground zero around which all other philosophical permutations supervene. Much of current debate seems largely to be conducted at the periphery. Naturalism has a long and and illustrious pedigree, from the earliest of presocratic philosophers Anaxagoras, Thales along with the atomist Democritus. Epicurus, in no small measure characterised the reality of naturalism, labelled by his contemporaries [IIRC] as a 'physico' [ ;o) ].
Following humanity's overlong and soul-draining hiatus dabbling in the curiosity of Christian supernaturalism, metaphysical naturalism has again emerged the stronger contender grounding our understanding of ourselves, our environment, the world, the universe, the cosmos and even, dare I say it, about gods of all shapes, flavours and persuasions. From the time the Enlightenment period witnessed the natural cleaving of science from theology as a philosophical pursuit in its own right, underpinned as it were by methodological naturalism, metaphysical naturalism has taken us into the 21stC, in even healthier shape despite the overhang of religious supernatural superstition [exemplified in the Fesers and the Plantingas]. Much if not most of contemporary philosophy is underpinned by metaphysical naturalism.
But I await the non-materialist 'shock and awe' you are about to deliver.
"Using the expression "omnipotent father figure" was simply a way of proffering a filial relation to God, for the sake of argument."
Sorry, Sojourner, I don't buy it. The OFF analogy is more than just an expression. That is what Christians predicate their whole personal relationship with God around. To suggest otherwise, for the sake of argument, is not a good look to what actually occurs in ritual in any church in the land and in prayer at home.
As Dr David Eller, foremost anthropologist aphorizes:
'Theists sometimes say that their God is possible.
But no one goes to church to worship a possibility."
It is not for me to substitute. I reiterate Dr John Shelby Spong what he believes, as a devout and committed christian, is necessary for followers of Jesus to grapple with, otherwise fade into irrelevancy:
Dr Spong's Twelve Points
1. Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God-talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found.
2. Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.
3. The Biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense.
4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes Christ's divinity, as traditionally understood, impossible.
5. The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity.
6. The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.
7. Resurrection is an action of God. Jesus was raised into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.
8. The story of the Ascension assumed a three-tiered universe and is therefore not capable of being translated into the concepts of a post-Copernican space age.
9. There is no external, objective, revealed standard written in scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behavior for all time.
10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way.
11. The hope for life after death must be separated forever from the behavior control mentality of reward and punishment. The Church must abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behavior.
12. All human beings bear God's image and must be respected for what each person is. Therefore, no external description of one's being, whether based on race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation, can properly be used as the basis for either rejection or discrimination.
I might add he is certainly not the lone voice among Christians calling for a change albeit not a sweeping as he proposes, but change nonetheless.
It really isn't about supposing this or that, for the sake of argument. It is about to go forward from here.
Crikey mate!
You still didn't answer the question, Papalinton.
Sojourner
Sojourner
Yes, my previous response is incomplete.
Justification? Only as much as any other citizen in the public square. Whether anyone wishes to acknowledge or abide the ethical system I subscribe to, is up to the individual and a matter for their personal consideration together with how well I practice the art of persuasion. One thing I do try to do is ground it in the reality of our natural existence in this world. I do not subscribe to relinquishing the origins of our morality to a [putative] supernatural agent not forfeit the responsibility and conduct of our behaviour to the primitive notion of congenital 'original sin'. This is folklore gone feral. And until someone comes up with substantiating the existence of gods, and confirmation of the causal effects of original sin, I will pass at this stage.
God doesn't have any rights because he is not a registered voter. As far as anyone else is concerned, their rights, your rights, have not been compromised by my advocacy for a more reasonable empirically-based moral code.
Papalinton,
Thank you for completing your thoughts.
I can't help but notice what seems to be an existential conundrum in your response, though. For if your justification is "only as much as any other citizen in the public square", how do you or I escape relativizing our own views while evaluating another's? For instance, if each citizen's own values purportedly justify their own judgements, how do we judge the values of someone else without also being justifiably judged by the other?
It would seem that this view better lends itself to moral pluralism, in which case value judgements would lack any corporate extension. Or is the best we can hope to achieve just personal satisfaction through finger pointing? Tough questions...
Sojourner
Zach
"Much of current debate seems largely to be conducted at the periphery."
I do hanker for an edit button. The above sentence refers to, and I shall edit it thus:
"Much of current debate between naturalism and supernaturalism seems largely to be conducted at the periphery of philosophy, in blogs like Feser's. One need only read of his despair and discomfort with modern philosophy. A good place to review this relationship would be his book, TLS. A-T philosophy and the pining for Medieval Scholasticism are two philosophical positions with little traction outside theological circles."
Sojourner
"[H]ow do you or I escape relativizing our own views while evaluating another's? For instance, if each citizen's own values purportedly justify their own judgements, how do we judge the values of someone else without also being justifiably judged by the other? "
We are free to exercise our judgements up to the threshold of what constitutes the rule of law. For example, if a couple for whatever reason in privacy of consultation with their physician conclude that they are to have an abortion, they are free to exercise their judgement within the rule of law. That does not impinge one iota on you and your wife exercising your free judgement not to have an abortion. A resort to blowing up family clinics and shooting doctors in church is not a judgement that should be encouraged, by anyone. If Roe v Wade is to be amended or repealed it must be through the democratic argie-bargie of the ballot box. The rule of law, together with democracy, however open to compromise it is, is still the best forum in which justification of our judgements are held up to on-going public scrutiny. As Winston Churchill once remarked, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
The rule of law as we know it, is the overt expression of our moral judgements as a community. Nothing could be more illustrative of the success of this process than the almost overwhelming support by the community, from both religious and non-believers alike, of the acceptance and acknowledgement of the need to codify the rights and the exercise of free choice of gays to marry into the legislative framework the defines the rule of law.
Sojourner, you say, "[H]ow do you or I escape relativizing our own views while evaluating another's?"
Why would you want to escape relativizing? In and of itself it is not a bad thing. But having asked that, the extent to which one can relativize is right up to, but not across, the boundary that defines the rule of law.
There is so much more than can be added. A blog is not an appropriate forum.
Corrigendum
"The rule of law as we know it, is the overt expression of our moral judgements as a community. Nothing could be more illustrative of the success of this process than the almost overwhelming support by the community, from both religious and non-believers alike, of the acceptance and acknowledgement of the need to codify the rights and the exercise of free choice of gays to marry into the legislative framework the defines the rule of law."
should read:
"The rule of law as we know it, is the overt expression of our moral judgements as a community. Nothing could be more illustrative of the success of this process than the almost overwhelming support by the community, from both religious and non-believers alike, of the acceptance and acknowledgement of the need to codify the rights and the exercise of free choice of gays to marry, into the very legislative framework that defines the rule of law."
Papalinton,
Interesting points. Unless I have misread you, commonly accepted community standards represent the well of positive value judgements from which we should drink.
If, as you say, one is free to exercise their "judgements up to the threshold of what constitutes the rule of law", what of rules of law shaped within a different socio-cultural context than your own? Moreover, if one's judgemental threshold is bounded by "moral judgements as a community", does this mean that one is never freely justified in exercising a contrary judgement? If not free, then it would seem that the moral enterprise is held hostage to mobocracy. Yet if they are in fact free, how can it be said that we are free to exercise "judgements up to the threshold of what constitutes the rule of law"?
Sojourner
@Papalinton,
The reason being, if we take an example, the Japanese are highly moral and ethical people.
Read a little about Japanese imperialism, and then read a little about how that still impacts relations in East Asia today.
Papa, with morality the problem is you will always get hung up on some kind of cultural/biological relativism.
Crude's fallacy-peddling notwithstanding, I prefer to engage with what people are presently saying rather than attack their character.
"if we take an example, the Japanese are highly moral and ethical people"
I've only been to Japan once, but I am a huge fan of Japanese cinema (just last night I watched Koreeda's I Wish, and Ozu is my all-time favorite director), and their movies are absolutely soaked in Shintoism, Taoism, and Buddhism. I imagine this must be at least some small reflection of actual societal attitudes. I don't think Linton can claim Japan as an atheistic culture.
Sojourner
"If, as you say, one is free to exercise their "judgements up to the threshold of what constitutes the rule of law", what of rules of law shaped within a different socio-cultural context than your own?"
That's the $64 question. Therein lies the commonality we all share beyond the different socio-cultural contexts. With continuing globalisation precipitated by mass communication and rapid transportation very few significantly sizable groups of people are more than a few hours away from each other, perhaps less than a day anywhere in the world. And with the speed, depth and breadth of personal communications unbounded by geography, something must give. If humanity is to mix freely and safely, we must look to more universal models of relationships. Nations states are binding into regional geo-political co-operative alliances with common goals of free trade, free exchange of education, goods etc through free trade agreements and a myriad of other interwoven bilateral, multilaterally and mutually agreed terms of human engagement be it economic, trade, social, sporting etc. The days of sovereign nation states are reaching their use-by date as larger conglomerations of countries merge to take advantage of the economies of scale. Picture NAFTA, or the EEC or APEC as fore-runners of conglomerate states of different peoples sharing common interests.
In place of these changed social and economic relationships, interdependence becomes the new operant paradigm between peoples of varied groups. Along with that immanent change, comes the pressure[?], for want of a better word, for a much more inclusive and wider participatory social order. In the interim, to overlay the existing country-specific, socio-cultural differences, it seems a supervening humanist secular approach is the framework is best placed to establish a social and economic structure that plugs into this increasingly important concept of interdependence. This means picking up the best of the ethical and moral practices that in the main share one common feature and fundamental principle, that of human flourishing. See HERE.
And HERE is a most interesting little article written by Gilbert Harman of Princeton University that lends some support to encouraging our seeking a wider, perhaps global supervening moral and ethical code based on a model [I suggest a humanist secular model] that circumvents misplaced character traits, be they personal, social, religious or cultural in nature, which we [falsely as it turns out] think are irreconcilable characteristics of the 'different socio-cultural contexts'. This article seems to suggest that no such traits exist and that it is possible that different people in different groups can share a common vision of human flourishing. The task of course is to disparate groups to the table. No done deal by any stretch, but we need to continue on that journey.
Zach
'Papa, with morality the problem is you will always get hung up on some kind of cultural/biological relativism.
Crude's fallacy-peddling notwithstanding, I prefer to engage with what people are presently saying rather than attack their character."
Sorry, I'm not with you there. Talk to me.
Bob
Here are some statistics on religion in Japan.
"About 70% of Japanese profess no religious membership,[9][10] according to Johnstone (1993:323), 84% of the Japanese claim no personal religion. In census questionnaires, less than 15% reported any formal religious affiliation by 2000.[11] And according to Demerath (2001:138), 65% do not believe in God, and 55% do not believe in Buddha.[12] According to Edwin Reischauer, and Marius Jansen, some 70–80% of the Japanese regularly tell pollsters they do not consider themselves believers in any religion. " Wiki
Elsewhere:
"East Asian cultures define religion differently from those in the West, making classification of certain adherents of Buddhism and Taoism particularly difficult, as belief in gods is generally absent in principle in these schools of thought except in syncretic outliers to the mainstreams of the belief system."
Papa those were two separate thoughts. One to you, one trying to discourage people from following Crude's dirty tactics.
Zach
Re: "'Papa, with morality the problem is you will always get hung up on some kind of cultural/biological relativism."
Do you mean me specifically or morality generally? That's all.
Post a Comment