Posted on 12/11/2002 6:28:08 AM PST by A2J
That is just another way of saying everyone values things differently. I didn't argue that. My argument was that people have worth regardless of whether I believe it, and I supported that argument quite well.
There is a difference between what I like and what is right and wrong. Similarly, there is a difference between what I value and what is truly and objectively value. Your mistake is you are trying to make objective and subjective the same thing.
Again you artificially limit the alternatives. To wit:
Note: This list not necessarily exhaustive.
No. 2 is really a false choice. You are making arbitrary and absolute the same thing and they are not. Although God's laws may be arbitrary (he decides what is right and wrong as he created everything in existence), they are also absolute in the sense that he is the ONLY possible source for absolute objective universal morals and value other than man. Nice try. Name another.
I'm still waiting for a third source for absolutes. God, man, or...... (you fill it in).
If it's not exhaustive, prove it by naming a 3rd option for morals besides God or man. You can't do it and you know it. Getting desperate?
You are absolutely right that it has to do with metaphysics and that's why the term materialism carries such forebodingly negative baggage in the crevo debates around here!
The term materialism in taken to mean the belief that everything that actually exists is material, or physical.
Here's more on the quandary from Dictionary of Philosophy of Mind:
The problem is that the relevant notion of spatial extension may depend on the very notion of material in need of elucidation. If there is such dependence, conceptual circularity hampers the proposed characterization of materialism. The main worry here is that the notion of spatial extension is actually the notion of something's being extended in physical space, or the notion of something's being physically extended. It seems conceivable that something (perhaps a purely spiritual being) has temporal extension, in virtue of extending over time, even though that thing lacks extension in physical space. It does not seem self-contradictory, in other words, to hold that something is temporal (or, temporally extended) but is not a body. If this is so, the proposed characterization of materialism should be qualified to talk of physical space or physical extension. In that case, however, the threat of conceptual circularity is transparent. Even if there is no strict circularity here, the pertinent notion of spatial extension may be too closely related to the notion of material to offer genuine clarification. At a minimum, we need a precise explanation of spatial extension, if talk of such extension aims to elucidate talk of what is material. Perhaps a notion of spatial extension is crucial to an elucidation of materialism, but further explanation, without conceptual circularity, will then be needed. (Cf. Chomsky 1988.)
If there is indeed a coherently conceivable distinction between minds and material bodies, we must reject the view that materialism, understood as entailing mind-body identity, is conceptually, or analytically, true—that is, true just in virtue of the meanings of `mind' and `body'. Given such a coherently conceivable distinction, we can also challenge any version of materialism implying that psychological concepts (for example, the concepts of belief and sensory pain) are defined in terms of the ordinary physical causes of belief states and pain states. (Such materialism has been proposed by D. M. Armstrong 1977, and David Lewis 1966.) If `pain' is defined in terms of the ordinary bodily causes of pain, then it will not be coherently conceivable that there is pain without bodies. The concept of pain will then depend for its semantic significance on the concept of a bodily cause.
Materialists do not share a uniform view about the nature of psychological properties, such as the properties of being a belief, being a desire, and being a sensory experience. In particular, they do not all hold that every psychological property is equivalent or identical to a conjunction of physical properties. Only proponents of reductive materialism hold the latter view, and they are a small minority among contemporary materialists. Proponents of nonreductive materialism reject the latter view, and affirm that psychological properties can be exemplified even in an immaterial world. Such nonreductive materialists include functionalists about the mind, who hold that psychological properties differ from material properties in virtue of the special causal or functional roles of the former. Functionalists differ from behaviorists in acknowledging the psychological relevance of causal relations among not only stimuli and behavior but internal states as well. A third prominent version of materialism, eliminative materialism, recommends that we eliminate most, if not all, everyday psychological discourse, on the ground that it rests on seriously misguided assumptions about human psychology—assumptions that will disappear with the advance of science.
You are getting desperate now. You are so loathe to admit when you are wrong that come up with the above? Actually, the pain/pleasure principle was posited as an ALTERNATIVE to conventional objective morality (it denies it!), and it finally evolved into utilitarianism. Is this the best you can do? Why don't you just admit you were wrong? You were and are.
That's a programming joke, son.
Betty, at some point you are going to have to face up to the fact that our 'federal' constitution has a supremacy clause that says that states are bound to follow the basic principles/laws of the United States Constitution. One of these basic principles, as you admit, -- is keeping government out of religion, and vice/versa.
Thus, fed/state/local public funded schools cannot favor any of 'the establishments of religion'. Such a simple concept, - why is it so difficult for some to understand? -4267-
Sure it does, tpaine. The Constitution as written or modified by amendment is the supreme law of the land. But what if this "supreme law" has been grossly mangled/misinterpreted by nine rather ideological sitting justices, back in 1962? What does that do to the supreme law?
Nothing. The principles remain. - Maybe 'mangled' in your opinion, but what actual right do you claim to have personally lost in '62?
It seems to mean that there was one "supreme law" prior to 1962, and a different "supreme law" thereafter. And the difference is not in the details, but is a transformation of the entire substance and meaning of the religion clause. In effect, the justices simply substituted their own "preference" rather than follow what the Framers clearly said.
Millions of your peers don't see it that way betty. -- Get the constitution amended, - or reinterpreted, - if you can.
It takes an amendment to change the supreme law in such a profound way. Where was the constitutional amendment? Or did the justices just effectively "amend" the Constitution in a way that does not pass muster with Article V?
Read their decision. They saw religious & individual freedom in their "misinterpretation". - You didn't? Good luck on getting it interpreted differently.
And even if you did 'win', civil disobedience would negate any restrictive law, -- much as prohibition was ignored or gun grabbing laws are being ignored presently.
In the end determined minorities of freedom loving 'we the people' are the ultimate judges of constitutionality. I hope that some day we can all agree on that.
The majority opinion does not rule on matters of inalienble individual rights to life, liberty, or property.
Really? There seem to be many archaeologists who don't share these views. Also proving parts of the Bible doesn't prove the whole Bible just as some events and places described in the Iliad that really do exist, don't make it true either.
For the rest, this pretty much comes up again and again. I've seen similar claims made on an other forum where I sometimes dwell. Here is a reply to such a claim. If you look around you will find even more responses since every newbie seems to think these arguments are somehow new and completely irrefutable. This however is not the case.
Now, if you really want to talk about truly circular logic, then you should consider the geologists and the paleontologists. The geologist says the rock is 70 million years old because there is a dinosaur fossil in it which is known to be 70 million years old. The paleontologist says the same dinosaur fossil is 70 million years old because it was found in a rock known to be be 70 million years old. This goes on all the time.
On the same board, only in the evolution section, radchemist promised a 2,000$ reward to that person who can demonstrate the claim you mentioned above. If you think you can provide such an example I suggest you post it there and take the 2,000$. However, no creationist there could give an example and this offer has been up for quite some time. And here is the link.
Regards
I'm sorry, I didn't want to be rude. I apologize if I offended you.
A god someone has to hide/cover/twist/spin things for really isn't worth serving anyway, IMHO. What do you think ?
That's just my opinion. If a god exists and he tries to deceive us I wouldn't worship him even if it could be proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt that he indeed exists.
I'm a seeker of the truth just like you are, right ?
Well, at least I'm not aware of anyone who is willfuly in search of the untruth ;^)
Regards
Geritol placemarker.
Well, now that you mention it, I've never seen them together.
What, pray tell, is the law of cause and effect?
, you can only go back so far with that argument. At the earliest point, you run out of natural scenarios. What do you do then? At the earliest point, either God caused it, or....what?
At no point in time, however, do you run out of immaterial scenarios. For aught anyone will likely ever be able to prove, God's plan guides each sperm to it's pre-chosen egg.
Besides, you and I both know that the naturalists who came up with the BB theory presuppose the non-existence of God.
I don't know any such thing, and neither does the subject of this thread.
The Genesis account just doesn't wash for a naturalist, you see, one must come up with an alternative. Thus, the BB.
Another conspiracy theory of history. The big bang was a direct and obvious response to the galactic red shift observations of Hubble.
My point at #4,175 was that:
- "Our sense of morality is self-evident, - & that all mankind has always possessed it, - is obvious from the presence of the 'golden rule' in all societies, regardless of religion.
We all learn this golden rule at our mothers breast, in the form of "don't bite the tit that feeds you".
- All else logically follows.
To which our 'fab' exmarine replied:
The golden rule does not exist in all societies. It is strictly Christian.
A flip remark he has been trying to justify ever since, -- seeing that it is obvious that there are versions of the golden rule from virtually every society that has had a recorded philosophy. -- I once saw a list here on FR of close to a hundred such examples. -4256-
Your post is exeedingly facile.
Tell you what - why don't YOU come up with a source other than God for moral absolutes...and don't tell me they are simply self-evident - that is a non-answer.
I already did, - just above. Mans reason is the source of his morality, sparked by the logic of the 'golden rule'.
Reality cannot be self-evident.
Why not?
-- This idiocy of yours, whereby you make simpilistic pronoucements, as above, is cute, but silly. -- Please, try to explain the logic of this oddly framed opinion.
There are only 2 sources for morals (unless YOU can name another!) - man or God. Take your pick.
Nope, - there is only one, - man. Unless of course, you can show us where a God set down these sources. -- And please, the bible is unquestionably a work of man.
troublemaker...
Clones and Rael-Politik
Wake Up, Cloning's Day Has Come
Does the Future Need Us? The Future of Humanity and Technology
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.