There are consequences. I am comfortable with a lack of absolute standards. You are not.
I am struck by that. A man asked me whether I would care if my mother were killed since I didn't believe life was sacred. I had to think on that awhile to make any sense of it. The idea behind it is that if one has no absolute standards then one has no standards at all. Anything goes. The same line of thought appears in the argument about the proper way to interpret the Constitution.
It's just not so. There is a real world out there. There is such a thing as human nature. We just have incomplete knowledge of it. Given that, there are many possible assumptions to work with. The scientific approach is a good model for that type of thinking. It doesn't lead to chaos. It doesn't lead to "immorality". Each approach has consequences. Each action has consequences. All approaches do not have equal value or equal appeal. And one has the power to choose. The political correctniks are not, in fact, correct.
I find the above an accurate description of reality. Your approach leads to competing religions, each claiming access to absolute truth, each advocating a different version of that truth, with no possibility of anything but never-ending conflict.
It is easy not to address the arguments by calling us truth-mongers.
"Each action has consequences. All approaches do not have equal value or equal appeal. And one has the power to choose."
All approaches are not equally good for the individual or society. But you are correct in stating that actions and choices have consequences. You have stolen my argument. The sexual act has consequences. The choice we have is to regulate the sexual act or regulate the outcome of that choice. The cowardly way is to regulate the outcome in my opinion. I am called sexually repressive, but it is far better than repressing the unborn. You see we have a choice as to how we engage in sex or whether to engage in sex. The unborn have no choice.
The idea behind it is that if one has no absolute standards then one has no standards at all. Anything goes. The same line of thought appears in the argument about the proper way to interpret the Constitution.
The reason that if there are no absolute standards then there are no standards at all is that there is no rational, coherent explanation for the existence of binding moral obligation in an impersonal, purely material universe governed solely by physcial forces. That premise taken to its logical conclusion leads to nilhism. I think the only reason that you have intuition of binding moral standards is that you live in a universe that was created by God, and that is owned and governed by God whether you acknowledge it or not. Every time you speak of some moral obligation or other you are speaking as if you live in a theistic universe, which in inconsistent with your presupposition. Since it is basically impossible to actually live out nilhism consistently, you 'borrow' from the theistic world-view. That inconsistency with your basic premise is my major point to you.
It's just not so. There is a real world out there. There is such a thing as human nature. We just have incomplete knowledge of it. Given that, there are many possible assumptions to work with. The scientific approach is a good model for that type of thinking. It doesn't lead to chaos. It doesn't lead to "immorality". Each approach has consequences. Each action has consequences. All approaches do not have equal value or equal appeal. And one has the power to choose.
What is human nature? If a human being is purely and nothing but a physical system, part of a much larger purely physical system called the universe, then it operates totally by the forces of physics and chemistry, which are by their nature totally coercive in their operation. Thus, any 'power to choose' would always be illusory because it would be the nothing but a result or an effect of a prior necessary and sufficient physical cause. There is no independent 'you' inside to cause anything because 'you' are always and only and nothing but effects of the prior physical causes of the brain in 'your' skull.
If 'you' cause nothing, but are only an effect of the biochemical reactions in 'your' brain, then such notions as 'choice' and 'free will', and by extension, rationality itself, are completely and utterly meaninless. Rationality means choosing between ideas, but there is no choice in a physical system that only operates by coercive force. Coercion and choice are antithetical. Besides, there is no personal agent to effect the choice. There are only coercive physical forces at work.
By logical extension, then, there can be no distinction between a 'good' idea and a 'bad idea', because there is nothing but impersonal physical force in operation, which is unable independently of prior physical causes, to make such a distinction. One physcial force may overpower another, but there cannot be said to be any 'good' or 'bad' ideas because all ideas alike have natural, material causes. There can be no moral distinctions, either, such as a difference between cruelty and kindness, because there is no moral obligation in a purely physical, impersonal universe. A purely physical universe just is - nothing in it 'ought' to be another way.
These are some of the reasons I believe the presupposition of naturalism is wrong. It is impossible even to speak or think in a way that people are normally accustomed to speaking and thinking about themselves and the world, and at the same time remain coherent and logically consistent with a purely naturalistic presupposition. Those who live most consistently with it are generally called psychopaths, but even then, if the presuppostion were true, there wouldn't be any way to make any real moral distinction between the saint and the psychopath.
So, my dear liberallarry, let me give you an example of what I mean. You say:
Your approach leads to competing religions, each claiming access to absolute truth, each advocating a different version of that truth, with no possibility of anything but never-ending conflict.
You seem to be implying here that we have some binding moral duty to avoid 'never-ending conflict', or that there is something 'wrong' with claiming access to absolute truth and advocating different versions of that truth, etc. You are not being neutral here - you are advocating a particlar view of morality, and thus your claim is self-refuting on its face. But aside from that, everytime you make such a moral claim you are speaking as if you live in a theistic universe, which is inconsistent with your premise. You are right that there is a philosophical gulf between us, and what I am trying to do here is stop you from intellectually 'cheating', or borrowing from our world-view without paying it back in acknowledgement of the Creator. But if you want to come over to our side of the gulf we would be glad to welcome you:^)
Cordially,