Posted on 05/01/2003 8:44:18 AM PDT by RJCogburn
That certainly could be implied. ;-)
You just defined yourself and AR as moral relativists. Can't you see the logical and practical problem with this? If it is true that each man makes up his own moral values (and that is the essence of saying a man's life is the moral standard), and we know that different men form different values, which man is correct? The only logical answer to you can only be "all of them" are correct. You cannot logically say AR's system is better than mine or Stalin's since each man is his own moral authority and no one man's morals can possibly carry any more force or authority than another's (unless you use brute force). You are your own authority, your own god. That means that cruelty and non-cruelty become equal because Stalin was cruel but his moral system is equal in every way to yours. You cannot say anyone is wrong (that word becomes meaningless), you can only say that you do not "prefer" another's morals system. Excuse me, but your moral system is pitifully weak and inadequate.
No, that is not my position.
I simply asked how you know that the existence of God is impossible or that omniscience is impossible. Your reply questions my position on certainty, which is fine, but you did not answer the question as to how you could know such a thing. It seems to me that you would have to be either omniscient or have searched throughout the universe to demonstrate that your proposition is true, which, if you had, would render the proposition self-refuting.
Cordially,
Interesting how we addressed Mr. Mills 'complaint.' No matter how you slice it, the answer is "Trust God, he's all right." ;-` Funny to see your 2:09 post after my 2:11. But I've probably yammered enough about it.
Hugs!
I always appreciate the thoughtfulness of your responses, general_re.
Yes and no. God is self-defining. And it is true that there are drawbacks to attaching labels to God. Yet if God is truly there and is not silent; that is, if He has spoken and revealed Himself in verbal proposition form, then we can at least confidently say;
1 Corinthians 13
12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
What is the alternative? That our moral impulses are nothing more than electro/chemical reactions in our brains that are nothing but the result of an impersonal, random concatenations of molecules in motion over time? Of what significance are such concatenations? If such were actually the case, why should I feel any obligation to obey such inclinations? Conversely, why does my heart alternately praise of condemn me for either obedience or disobedience to the moral law? (Interestingly, what should I make of my inveterate inclination to DISOBEY the moral law?) In either case, though, what significance would either obedience or disobedience to the moral law ultimately have in a random, impersonal universe?
Cordially,
I beg your indulgence for the additional observation here that "the problem of evil" can only coherently be a problem for theists:^).
Cordially,
Yes, God bless him and his knickerbockers.
(But you may know me by now... although I started at least one of his books, Christian Manifesto, I haven't finished any. Saw most of the How Should We Then Live films more than 20 years ago, so I'm glad for articles that summarize --and discussion.)
Cicero tells me there was an RC theologian/philosopher/historian in Switzerland at the same time, who from what I see, dealt with many of the same issues in many of the same ways: Hans Urs von Balthasar. I wonder if they met.
I've read a-lot more of the other patron saint of "evangelorthodox" Christian thought of the 20th C., Lewis, but I need to get caught up with Abolition of Man which betty boop mentioned a few days ago.
Indeedey and there is the big relief.
Cicero tells me there was an RC theologian/philosopher/historian in Switzerland at the same time, who from what I see, dealt with many of the same issues in many of the same ways: Hans Urs von Balthasar. I wonder if they met.
I haven't heard this, but the name "Copleston" comes to mind. However, Dr. Schaeffer had some things to say about the RC church that cast a decidedly unfavorable light on that church. For example, Aquinas is perhaps the most prominent catholic philosopher and Dr. Schaeffer points out that Aquinas made a big mistake when he tried to reconcile Aristotlean thinking (dealing with the particulars and man's autonomy) with Christianity (dealing with the universals and God's autonomy), and how Aquinas' writings served to corrupt Christianity more than help it.
Serves to let me be all the more motivated to say that since it starts with God, we need to understand man not first from even our 'personality' but from our 'relationalilty.'
I think in that case "morality" boils down to how each individual answers the question, "what can I get away with?"
Otherwise we have to assume -- either explicitly or tacitly -- the existence of some transcendent moral order that makes it "wrong" do do certain things even if we can get away with them.
If you look back through this thread, you'll notice that by and large people are assuming that such a transcendent moral order does, indeed, exist.
Some folks, such as the good general offer a middle ground, corresponding to a general assent among people as to what they will or will not tolerate. This falls short in a couple of ways, though.
First off, there's not a whole lot to separate "general assent" from mob rule, and in a moral system based on "general assent," it's difficult to say that mob rule is actually wrong, as opposed to merely distasteful. For example, if we abide by general assent, it's difficult to find legitimate grounds for complaint when the Third Reich undertakes to gas the Jews.
But of course, we just know that it's wrong to gas the Jews, regardless of the fact that it enjoyed general assent. In that vein, general_re has also referred to "an innate sense of morality" which could potentially moderate the urge to mob rule.
But again, this is an appeal to some transcendant moral order. It could be an evolved trait -- "Moral DNA", if you will. But as Diamond points out, it appears that "morality" will have lost its meaning in the context of this conversation. If it's an evolutionary thing, morality becomes a matter of random mutation! At any rate, this idea of "moral DNA" is really just the biochemical equivalent of "what can I get away with?"
Which apparently leaves us to pin this "innate sense of morality" on some non-physical phenomenon. This leads us directly to a consideration of moral authority. Must I bow to a purported moral authority if I "don't believe in" the non-physical phenomenon from which it allegedly springs?
Obviously not: if this non-physical phenomenon is merely a made-up concept, then the "innate sense of morality" reduces to a matter of personal belief and moral relativism.
If the "innate sense of morality" is to have authority, it has to be valid even if we do not believe in it. Appeals to general assent don't really work here (they lead to a circular argument); nor does the idea of "moral DNA (who's to say this isn't just a potentially successful "moral mutation?").
Instead, it seems that moral authority comes only if the source of this innate sense is truly transcendent -- some entity or property of nature that can somehow differentiate between right and wrong and, more importantly, enforce the difference in some manner. The "property of nature" approach seems weak, in that it does not easily explain how a Pharaoh can "get away with it" until he dies at a ripe old age.
Which leaves an entity, coupled with some different concept of what "life" is.
This is incorrect. Schaeffer did NOT embrace rationalism, but "rationalistic approach". There is a HUGE difference (which Schaeffer himself points out) between rationalism (man is the measure of all things) and rationalistic thought (right reason). Just wanted to clear that up...
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.