Replies

Thank you for pinging me to the “law of the jungle” discussion between you (unspun and Hank!) Hank, you said:

Everyone tends to see things as they are. The thief believes everyone is a thief, the liar thinks everyone is a liar.

And then you almost immediately also said:

Those who embrace a rational moral view not only do not initiate the use of force against any other individual, but neither desire or pursue anything they have not earned by their own effort.

If I apply your first statement ”everyone tends to see things they way they are” to your second statement, I get an interesting result. The conclusion that “a person who embraces a certain rational moral view would not initiate the use of force against any other individual and would neither desire nor pursue anything they haven’t earned by their own effort” is the tendency of one ”to see things the way they are”.

And that brings me right back to agreeing with general_re --- you can no more be objective about any “rational moral view” than I can be objective about “the absolute moral law of God.”

Why do you hate reason, truth, decency, honesty, and virtue so much?

That is a strange allegation, Hank; unless you mean something other than the common dictionary definition, I do not hate any of these things. I also do not hate any person or being.

I am at odds with metaphysical naturalism – along with any philosophy which elevates self to parity, or above, God. That is an abomination to me; it is utterly pointless to try to convince me otherwise. Conversely, I have it on highest authority of my faith that anyone who willfully excludes God in their pursuit of knowledge will be given over to a reprobate mind (Romans 1:28) – therefore, it is futile for me to discuss knowledge much less wisdom, with a metaphysical naturalist.

And the futility is only more clear with your own statement: Everyone tends to see things as they are. A metaphysical naturalist can only see the world through a metaphysical naturalist’s eyes. A born again believer can only see the world through a born again believer’s eyes.

If I apply your first statement ”everyone tends to see things they way they are” to your second statement, I get an interesting result. The conclusion that “a person who embraces a certain rational moral view would not initiate the use of force against any other individual and would neither desire nor pursue anything they haven’t earned by their own effort” is the tendency of one ”to see things the way they are”.

Almost right, except that, it is not "a certain rational moral view," as though there were more than one, but "a rational view," because, there is only one reality, and a rational moral view is based on reality. There is only one rational moral view.

Hank

A metaphysical naturalist can only see the world through a metaphysical naturalist’s eyes. A born again believer can only see the world through a born again believer’s eyes.

Of course, regardless of which eyes one employs, the actual truth is not affected a whit. Which, in turn, does not make it any less curious that there seems to be little agreement about which truths are objectively true ;)