Posted on 11/24/2009 4:10:44 PM PST by NYer
Statistics released Nov. 24 by the FBI show hate crimes against religious groups increased by 9% from 2007 to 2008.
USA Today reported that in 2008, there 1,519 incidents against people based on their religion, the statistics show.
The figures reveal that while anti-Jewish attacks made up the highest percentage of the attacks (17%), there was an increase in hate crimes against Catholics — 75, up from 61 in 2007.
Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, said the increase may be due to the Church becoming more vocal on life issues such as abortion and homosexual unions.
As the Catholic bishops take a stronger stance, he said, it filters down to the laity, and as more traditional Catholics become more vocal, they become targets for those who disagree with them.
“Unfortunately, it spills over into violence,” he said, adding that it’s just going to get worse before it gets better.
“I’ve never seen our country so culturally divided and so polarized,” he said. “These issues are not going away.”
Brilliant!
Meaning? Whose meaning? More college cafeteria. Truth is an absolute concept, which can only have an absolute meaning—which is an oxymoron. Meaning is something relative. One man's trash is another man's treasure. There you have it: a pile of objects, and one person says "Trash!" while the other says "Treasure!" Remove the individuals and it has no meaning at all.
Not sure I follow here, please rephrase.
Meaning is something relative.
How are you defining meaning, as "value"? Are you stating, therefore, that only relative values exist?
Are you stating, therefore, that only relative values exist?
Yes. Value is a relative worth, merit or importance.
Actually, I didn't qualify value with absolute or relative, but that would certainly be part of it, the search for meaning and truth.
Yes. [ Only relative values exist.]
Could I see your proof for that statement?
Value is a subjective, individual sense of worth, relative to that individual. Maybe you are confusing value and quality.
That would be a definition of relative value, yes. If you're saying this is the definition of the only value that exists, that's restating, not proving.
Absolute value and relative (or conditional) value are common terms used in ethics and philosophy, I'm not mistaking terms.
Your statement was that only relative values exist. I'm asking for your proof of your statement.
Theoretically no, objectively yes.
Values have objective meaning only as they relate to us as individuals. Something cannot be beneficial by itself. What "good," what value is heat by itself? What "good" is love if you have no one to love? What "good" are you if you have no one to be good to? How can you be "true" if you have no one to be true to?
A value means that something is worth more or less to someone. It is not something that exists sui generis in an absolute sense; in fact, it becomes menaingless if it is assumed to exist in an absolute sense.
You will have to show me that there is such a thing as, for example, absolute merit. Until then, I will treat such absolute value as an oxymoron and maintain that values are, by necessity, relative or else they are not values.
You said that you believe in Truth (the absolute truth, I suppose), which you define with a meaningless label "fact + value." However, you have yet to explain what it is that you believe in. So far it seem to be an oxymoron.
You are confusing objective with absolute. Not the same thing.
What "good," what value is heat by itself?
Again off the topic and irrelevant to whether only relative values exist.
Assume for your discussion that value means value to someone. Now prove that only relative value exists.
I said I was speaking of: What exists and what's its meaning. It would be an oxymoron to say meaning was meaningless.
Meaning does include value and this includes relative value and absolute value and whether only relative value exists, conditional and non-conditional value, intrinsic and extrinsic, and so on.
The proposition that only relative values exist, or all value is extrinsic is a relatively recent one, [see Beardsley]. There is still much debate and some very good arguments laid out on the subject, Kant on one side for example, but solid proof, a nice tight syllogism, either way on whether only relative values exist? If you can, you would be the first.
Doesn't mean we can discuss our beliefs and rationales for our beliefs on the topic though.
I am curious about one aspect of your belief that only relative value exists. Did you hold this belief while you were Christian, or is it a part of your thinking that also changed or evolved as your faith changed?
Meaning cannot be meaningless. Meaning is not a "thing." It is someone's relative measure of value or merit.
The proposition that only relative values exist, or all value is extrinsic is a relatively recent one, [see Beardsley]
So?
a nice tight syllogism, either way on whether only relative values exist? If you can, you would be the first.
Prove to me that there is (absolute) Truth and my argument is defeated by default. We all agree there are relative values. No proof needed there. What we lack is proof that there are absolute values, that something is good all by itself without anyone to be good to.
I am curious about one aspect of your belief that only relative value exists. Did you hold this belief while you were Christian, or is it a part of your thinking that also changed or evolved as your faith changed?
I do not hold this "belief," I know that something can be good only if there is someone to perceive it as good. By necessity, that makes it conditional and relative. A sui generis (stand-alone) absolute "good" is an oxymoron.
As a Christian, I simply participated in the "life of the Church," with all my heart and all my soul, always singing in the divine liturgy, right up front, oblivious to the world, and believed wholeheartedly in awe that God was present in the Church.
If there were any doubt, I always deferred to the 2,000-year old wisdom of the Holy and Apostolic Church and was fine with that. And if I had a question about something, I was usually given a fitting biblical answer, or a pastoral advice that "made sense" by my spiritual father and confessor. God was the ultimate Mystery who was known to us through his Son to whom we could relate on human terms. I used to think, "wow, no other religion has this!" I could even "feel him," or so I thought. It was a perfect little world—well almost, and I almost fell for it.
Correct. The cost of an object may be X. If that object is worth less to me than X, that is entirely up to me. For example, I have a neighbour who gets a new Tahoe every couple of years. That Tahoe may cost $35,000 to him and he values it at that level. On the other hand, I have little use for one, and I would not purchase one at any price unless I could immediately unload it at a profit, or get it so cheap that it would overcome the other relative lack of value it has in other aspects of its design and build.
Thank you Mark. Your bone-dry logic is refreshing.
On the oither hand, an "absolute value" would have to represent something that is worth exactly the same to all rational beings, regardles of gender, species, race, age, culture, education, experience, social status or planet anywhere in the universe for all times. It simply does not exist. It's an oxymoron.
You're still not correctly stating what absolute value means. Hard to discuss to competently without it.
Prove to me that there is (absolute) Truth and my argument is defeated by default.
Prove to me that only relative value exists and the argument for absolute value is defeated.
We can do neither. All we can do is say one side or the other is more convincing to us or that we believe one assertion or the other. But they remain unproven - at least unproven using the strict requirements of proof by formal logic.
On the oither hand, an "absolute value" would have to represent something that is worth exactly the same to all rational beings, regardles of gender, species, race, age, culture, education, experience, social status or planet anywhere in the universe for all times. It simply does not exist. It's an oxymoron.
There is a difference between value and cost and many people don't quite get it.
Christianity teaches that there are absolute values - but those are set by God, not by man. That is why I say that morality is external and not internal. Morality that reflects the objective (!) teachings of God is fixed, or has been for more than a millennium. Beliefs that reflect the subjective feelings of an individual will vary with the weather, hunger pangs, wifely anger, or a tree falling on one's car.
Poorly stated again. Think "unconditioned."
In one sense, and I certainly use it often in that sense, but others as well. What does it mean? can ask a great deal more that "What is it worth?"
I do not hold this "belief," I know
Ok, didn't mean to insult with "believe." One can "know" things incapable of formal proof.
As a Christian, I…
I never had that experience, didn't grow up Christian or anything. Agnostic at most, then firmly Atheist.
I could even "feel him,"
What do you think that was?
I almost fell for it.
I do agree that it's best we come to our religion ourselves, going through life.
You can't even tell me what God objectively is and you are telling me there is such a thing as "objective [sic] teachings of God?" How would you even know they're from God when you can't tell me what God is?
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.