Religion of Peace
Posted by Daniel Lyons Thu, 21 Sep 2006 04:07:25 GMT
A friend of mine had this to say about Islam: “The religion of peace has spent its capital. People aren’t buying it anymore.”
Today I heard a commentator say that basically what the Pope had said was that Christianity and Islam cannot connect theologically, because Christianity is assumes Hellenistic principles of reason and the reasonableness of G-d, and Islam basically rejects them altogether. Therefore, the Pope said, we should instead engage in a cultural dialogue, because that would be possible.
At about the same time as this all began I was wondering to myself if I would ever meet any of these reasonable Muslims that I assume exist. (If anyone who reads my blog is a Muslim, please email me or comment, because I’d like to hear from you.) I read Mustafa Akyol’s blog, but apart from him I don’t think I can point to a reasonable Muslim voice I hear from on a regular basis, and he doesn’t post that often.
The Pope’s take, however, meshes pretty well with my perception of the problem. American Muslims, by and large, are not rioting in the streets demanding an apology. I’m going to go out on a limb here and suppose that they support their foreign brethren about the same way American Jews feel about Israelis: their government makes choices that are sometimes hard to defend, and I have no interest in living there, but nonetheless I feel a connection to them and I support them. The reason is that we all are essentially Western. The problem we’re having is a cultural problem between West and, well, Arabia. This doesn’t make it a religious war between Christians (and Jews) versus Muslims, because most American and Turkish Muslims don’t tolerate the kind of behavior that’s common across the Middle East: honor killings, gratuitous martyrdom, and so forth.
So, my friend observed that because Islam glorifies G-d’s omnipotence over his reason, and the world at large basically glorifies power, the world is basically moving in the direction of Islam, to its detriment. My response was that, well, there are reforms taking place in Islam, particularly in Turkey, and I wouldn’t be surprised if there were a sort of unspoken reform going on here in America. He wanted to know about the religious foundation of these reforms. I say, that’s not our problem. Look at America. The philosophical foundations of the Constitution were eroded perhaps over a hundred years ago and yet our country marches on. I don’t care whether the foundation of another religion’s reform is sound, I only have to concern myself with mine.
I think ultimately we both agree with the Pope: this is a cultural problem. Indeed, going back to the Qur’an we find statements about the treatment of women and religious equality which are quite admirable and definitely not implemented in most Muslim nations. But they are implemented here and there are Muslims here who are happy (as much as any American is) with America. So cultural acclimation seems to be possible.
I think if we could just restrain the excesses of our culture a little bit, this problem would be greatly diminished.
I recommend speaking to a Muslim mullah. The only religious gatherings I’ve been to since I was a child (excluding Halloween parties) were Eid celebrations at the local Islamic Cultural Center/mosque here in Socorro, and I only went because I thought the local Muslims were very nice and reasonable people, with few exceptions. And there are a lot of them, including Hamdee, who I chatted with at the last Eid I went to for a bit. As far as Christianity being reasonable, I need only point out Right-to-Lifers, supporters of the death penalty, “Intelligent Design”, and George W. Bush to defeat that statement. As far as the world moving in the direction of Islam, that’s not supported by statistical evidence. There are two major proselyte groups operating in the Third world today: Muslims and Pentecostals. The Pentecostals are winning more converts. Not to mention China and Europe, the majority population of a couple of continents filled with intelligent, secular people who are actually moving forward instead of reversing themselves into a dark age of religious barbarism, like the US and the Midle East. Notice a correlation between declining standards of living and religious fervor? I do, and I submit that it actually is significant.
I am a Right-to-Lifer.
I believe the death penalty would be valid if the rest of the government were. But I don’t trust the American government to apply it correctly, so I don’t really take a stand on that issue.
The most outspoken proponent of Intelligent Design I hear is the aforementioned Mustafa Akyol. He has an essay about it on his site in which explains that it isn’t intrinsically Christian at all.
I know plenty of reasonable Christians. That seems as valid a point as your knowing plenty of reasonable Muslims. I’m sure they’re out there, I just don’t know where they are. They certainly aren’t reading my blog.
I am sure that religious extremism goes hand-in-hand with declining standards of living, but I obviously didn’t and don’t reach the absurd conclusions you do about religion itself.
I recommend speaking to a Muslim mullah. The only religious gatherings I’ve been to since I was a child (excluding Halloween parties) were Eid celebrations at the local Islamic Cultural Center/mosque here in Socorro, and I only went because I thought the local Muslims were very nice and reasonable people, with few exceptions. And there are a lot of them, including Hamdee, who I chatted with at the last Eid I went to for a bit. As far as Christianity being reasonable, I need only point out Right-to-Lifers, supporters of the death penalty, “Intelligent Design”, and George W. Bush to defeat that statement. As far as the world moving in the direction of Islam, that’s not supported by statistical evidence. There are two major proselyte groups operating in the Third world today: Muslims and Pentecostals. The Pentecostals are winning more converts. Not to mention China and Europe, the majority population of a couple of continents filled with intelligent, secular people who are actually moving forward instead of reversing themselves into a dark age of religious barbarism, like the US and the Midle East. Notice a correlation between declining standards of living and religious fervor? I do, and I submit that it actually is significant.
Sorry about the repeat post, that was an accident. The problem with the death penalty in a Judeo-Christian context under a modern dialogue is this: Who bells the cat? I can hear the cries of “You’re oversimplifying” already, so let me make it abundantly clear. The Ten Commandments are the most important thing next to Jesus Christ in Christianity. Not only do the Commandments inform Christians not to murder people, but Christ also tells them that, even more forcefully. As well as giving them a message along the lines of “Let he who is without sin among you cast the first stone.” So who is allowed to kill somebody? The answer is pretty abundantly clear and, might I add, extremely SIMPLE in the Christian texts: GOD. That’s who, that’s it. Any other interpretation is (In great hellenic style) Hubris. So as to the mentioning of right-to-lifers, such as yourself. How can you possibly support the death penalty AND be anti-abortion? The fundamental argument of anti-abortionists is that you are taking another human’s life, which amounts to murder. Meanwhile, you advocate murder by supporting the death penalty. No matter how much you wiggle, it boils down to a violation of your own professed axioms. Not to say that this is a violation of rabbinical judaism, as it certainly is NOT, but it certainly is a violation of fundamentalist Christianity.
As far as Mustafa Akyol being the “most outspoken proponent of Intelligent Design” that you hear, haven’t you heard of the discovery Institute? you know, the lobbying conservative Christian organization which STARTED ID??? I mean, FFS, the wiki entry on ID says “(Intelligent Design’s) leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute…” Sorry I took your question of whether you would “ever meet any reasonable Muslims” seriously. I was just sort of shocked to hear that from someone who had spent a fair amount of time around some of the most reasonable Muslims I’ve ever met in my life, and I’ve actually been to a Muslim country. As far as your point of knowing “plenty of reasonable Christians” being as valid a point as mine, let me put it this way: I have never met any Muslim as fanatically outspoken as MOST of the Christians I have met. If you actually took the trouble to learn about Muslims and, I dunno, Speak to them, you’d find that they’re mostly EXTREMELY reasonable and accepting people compared to other religious folks. Ask yourself this: have you ever bothered to go to a mullah and talk to him? how about a priest? Or a rabbi? If you take religion as seriously as you seem to, it would make sense to actually approach representatives of such religions on religious questions, instead of expecting them to read your blog.
Oh, and as far as the “absurd conclusions” I come to, it is proven that people under stress are more likely to become addicted and are more susceptible to cultism and brainwashing than people who feel secure. The “absurd conclusions” I draw when it comes to equating lower standards of living (i.e. stress) to increasing fundamentalism are, scientifically, not absurd at all. In fact, they’re proven. Merry Teacup-Orbiting-Marsmas.
What in particular do you mean by “the excesses of our culture”? I’d be interested to hear how you’d change our culture.
p.s. What did you think of the Chasm CD I sent you?
Attempting to demonstrate the character of a religion from a handful of acquaintances doesn’t seem a very sound method. The only muslim I know is a real nice guy. So? Pronouncements from non-Christians about the “second most important thing” in Christianity are also pretty amusing.
The accusation that opposing abortion is inconsistent with supporting (or not opposing) capital punishment requires the suppression of a whole host of facts.
I agree that the world is moving in the direction of Islam. The biggest religious movement, at least in the West, is neither Islam nor Pentecostalism. It is atheism. And modern atheism has rejected the natural law underpinnings of Judaism. There’s no philosophical reason why atheism must reject the natural law. It’s just a blind reaction motivated by hatred of Christianity. But the result is that modern atheism is moving more and more towards the moral philosophy of Islam. The moral philosophy of Islam, simply put, is that might makes right. Allah’s commands are good simply because Allah commands them. If he commands love, then love is good. If he commands hate, then hate is good. “Good” doesn’t refer to anything intrinsic to the thing itself. “Good” actions are defined simply as the actions that Allah will arbitrarily reward.
That’s the moral philosophy of modern atheism. It was possible to convince a 19th-century English atheist that abortion was wrong. You only had to show him what abortion is and does. It’s obvious to any rational person that abortion is the premeditated and gruesome killing of a human creature. Old-school atheists believed that kind of killing was wrong just as strongly as Christians did. With modern atheists, though, there’s no point even in discussing the facts of abortion. First, they’re monumentally ignorant of the facts and willfully obstinate in the face of persuasion. But finally, convincing them that abortion kills human beings gets you nowhere, because they believe that killing human beings is just fine as long as something good comes of it. Under the natural law, killing is morally justifiable if it is necessary for self-defense. In Islam, killing non-aggressors is justifiable if it will scare third parties into changing their behavior. In modern atheism, killing innocent human life is morally justifiable if the human life is inconvenient for any reason or if the killing could improve the quality of life of any of the survivors.
Islam isn’t that bad, thank God. The most horrible, fanatical kind of Islam has a certain humility that modern atheists lack. And I doubt Islamic terrorism can ever eclipse the atheistic horrors of Joseph Stalin and Margaret Sanger. The natural law is all that kept us civilized, or something like it, for 4,000 years. Without it, terrorism and its Western equivalents are all we can look forward to.
Michael Herrick:
You seem pretty convinced of the validity of “natural law”. Could you please give objective evidence as to why we should accept that such natural law exists? Also: some societies (China, India, etc.) have been civilized for 4000 years or longer, despite lacking the Western concept of natural law. Can you account for this?
As an atheist, I find your comments on atheism so incredibly ignorant as to render them laughable. The concept that atheists reject morality is infantile. It’s called “personal responsibility”, not all of us need magical unicorns to tell us what’s right and what’s wrong: We have reason. Now, to address your points: 1. You claim there is a “natural law” distinction between killing and murder. Yet you then proceed to make a semantic argument. Semantics != “Natural Law”. Neither I, nor many translators of The Bible (which, I remind you, we have no certainty of having any sort of “original text” of), make such a distinction. 2. First of all, 4000 years of “tradition” also demand that I treat goyim as less than human. 4000 years of “tradition” demand that I not eat pork. 4000 years of “tradition” means very little in a modern context, short of being aware of said tradition. A tradition which I, unlike some people I know, was raised around. I will presume that my mother and her ancestors are more familiar with this tradition than somebody who marks the end of said tradition with the death of a goy. 3. John The Baptist was neither God nor a prophet. So you’re saying I should take his statements at equal value to those theoretically given to Moses directly by God? Or to those statements made by the Son of God? 4. Your response in no way addresses the actual, moral issue here. In particular, who is to judge? According to the axioms of Christianity, no “sinner”. You’re confusing judicial process with basic morality. 5. Ah, the “dismemberment techniques” argument. You realize that this particular method of abortion is no longer in use and was hardly ever used in the US, right? The only cases in which it was used were in cases in which the life of the woman in question was in grave danger if she were to attempt to give birth. Thanks for spewing ill-informed propaganda back at me.
Speaking of ill-informed, I find it quite cute that you go on to talk about how horrendous and evil and painful abortion is when you clearly are just repeating statements made by anti-abortion activists. You see, I was actually curious about this at one time not too long ago and looked into the procedures which are used. I also spoke with a doctor who performs abortions about it. All of this dismemberment crap which you morons spew all the time is NOT USED. If you want to find out what really awful abortions are, just look at documented cases of abortion from when abortion was still illegal in most states. Oh, and let’s speak of this amazing “humility” which we atheists are so sorely lacking. I, as an atheist, stand by myself when I say what I think. I use logic and reason in my arguments. I even argue within the framework of others. At NO POINT do I get to have the caveat of “oh, well I think this is so because something undetectable and unproveable tells me so.” I am forced by my worldview to suffer people like yourself who “argue” without any concept of what the word means. Logic and reason, great human achievements both, are outside of your world. Religious people like yourself look at atheists as subhuman. I would go so far as to say that religious people (certainly those of the Abrahamic faiths) look on people of other belief systems as subhuman. Tell me again about “humility” when I am being told that I am LESSER THAN YOU because I lack the belief in magical ponies which you possess. I am a modern atheist. I do not believe in killing ANYBODY. No atheist I have ever heard of has said that. Do you know why? We place value on life far greater than anybody who believes in an afterlife could ever understand. This is it, 70-odd years of existence. No eternal paradise or even damnation, just 70 years or so. As a final offering, I put it to you that you value the life of an unformed blob of protoplasm more than you value the life of the whole human. Not only do you abhor these mythical techniques of abortion as horrible and gruesome and awful, you’re perfectly willing to presume that the techniques used by the prison system are humane. What you’re saying is that doctors (the guardians of life and health) are evil torturers and that prison guards and the designers of machines with which to kill people are wonderful human beings. In conclusion, your views are woefully ignorant, horribly bigoted, and just incredibly sad. You know nothing of Atheism or Abortion, and yet you seem to hate both. Well, I have no such recourse as you, so I have to find reasons to hate people. This means I actually try to learn about them, which was what I was encouraging Daniel to do in my first response. Funny how pointing you religious wackos in the direction of actual answers to your questions always seems to bring out anger and fear. I also enjoy how you completely bypass the facts which I stated and rely, instead, on your own beliefs, which you do not back up with any facts at all. I wonder, are you a telepath or something who instinctively “knows” the truth without having to resort to facts and reason like the rest of us poor mortals? If so, I submit that you shouldn’t be so incredibly humble about it.
I’ll take your accusations in order.
Yes, I maintain that there is a natural law distinction between killing and murder. It is expressed in everyday language, which, while not an arbiter, is nevertheless a useful guide. You did some handy-dandy deconstructionism on my linguistic argument, but you didn’t even touch my legal argument. I say the distinction is also expressed in the US laws that distinguish homicide, manslaughter and the various “degrees” of murder. I repeat my claim that Western civilization has consistently seen a difference between homicide and murder and I challenge you to prove me wrong.
Tradition demands that you not eat pork? That’s preposterous. The kosher laws are for the Jews. That’s always been clear. Prove me wrong. Should be easy for you, so go for it.
You say the Baptist was not a prophet. You’re wrong. Christ called John the Baptist “a prophet and more than a prophet.” His teaching carries a lot of weight. You make some pretty big claims that the most elementary research refutes. I’m making claims here that should be just as easy for you to refute. Let’s see you do it.
If you’re correct that Christianity demands that no sinner ever sit in judgement over another, then you should have no trouble producing dozens of verses, say from Paul, calling for the dissolution of temporal government and the institution of a theocracy, enforced, I guess, by miracles. Go ahead. Give me one.
You maintain that suction-curettage and dilation-and-extraction is now never used as an abortion method in the United States? Does that mean you disagree with me on a point of fact but agree with me on a point of principle? Does that mean that if, just suppose, I could show you that these methods are in use today in the US, you’d join me in condemning them? Or was this just a red herring? Because those are boring.
You say that abortion involves the life of “an unformed blob of protoplasm.” Interesting claim. For the sake of argument, if it were possible for me to show you that a 12-week old fetus is not an unformed blob of protoplasm, would you join me in condemning abortion as immoral? Or was that another red herring?
I never said that I personally approved of capital punishment. Far less did I suggest that I support the prison system of the United States or regard any portion of it as humane. And anyway, what do my views about the prison system have to do with abortion? Another red herring?
There you go buddy. I think I got them all, the serious ones, anyway, bullet-pointed for your convenience. Let’s see what you got.
Now a general comment to try to clear up my previous comment, since I don’t think you even tried to understand it:
I never said atheists reject morality. I said most modern atheists reject the natural law. Groups like the Brights are very vocal about their belief in morality but when you press them it turns out to rest on not much more than the Golden Rule. That’s a good start. I say it’s not enough. Most Brights reject the natural law as supernatural. I say it’s knowable by reason alone. Want to disagree with me? Fine. But don’t go accusing me of making claims I didn’t make.
I have made no claims that require what you regard as “magic unicorns” to back them up. I maintain that morality is knowable by reason alone without any revelation. I maintain that the problem with Islam is that it rejects reason and that the problem with atheism is that it limits reason’s application in the moral sphere, largely, I suspect, because of it’s fascination with reason in the spheres of science. I never suggested that Islam and atheism could be fixed by turning them into Judaism. I do say that atheism (I don’t know about Islam) could be improved by atheists returning to their roots and re-discovering the natural law.
I made no religious comments whatsoever. You didn’t read what I said. You just reacted to all the cliches that infest your mind.
I’ll take your accusations in order.
Yes, I maintain that there is a natural law distinction between killing and murder. It is expressed in everyday language, which, while not an arbiter, is nevertheless a useful guide. You did some handy-dandy deconstructionism on my linguistic argument, but you didn’t even touch my legal argument. I say the distinction is also expressed in the US laws that distinguish homicide, manslaughter and the various “degrees” of murder. I repeat my claim that Western civilization has consistently seen a difference between homicide and murder and I challenge you to prove me wrong.
Tradition demands that you not eat pork? That’s preposterous. The kosher laws are for the Jews. That’s always been clear. Prove me wrong. Should be easy for you, so go for it.
You say the Baptist was not a prophet. You’re wrong. Christ called John the Baptist “a prophet and more than a prophet.” His teaching carries a lot of weight. You make some pretty big claims that the most elementary research refutes. I’m making claims here that should be just as easy for you to refute. Let’s see you do it.
If you’re correct that Christianity demands that no sinner ever sit in judgement over another, then you should have no trouble producing dozens of verses, say from Paul, calling for the dissolution of temporal government and the institution of a theocracy, enforced, I guess, by miracles. Go ahead. Give me one.
You maintain that suction-curettage and dilation-and-extraction is now never used as an abortion method in the United States? Does that mean you disagree with me on a point of fact but agree with me on a point of principle? Does that mean that if, just suppose, I could show you that these methods are in use today in the US, you’d join me in condemning them? Or was this just a red herring? Because those are boring.
You say that abortion involves the life of “an unformed blob of protoplasm.” Interesting claim. For the sake of argument, if it were possible for me to show you that a 12-week old fetus is not an unformed blob of protoplasm, would you join me in condemning abortion as immoral? Or was that another red herring?
I never said that I personally approved of capital punishment. Far less did I suggest that I support the prison system of the United States or regard any portion of it as humane. And anyway, what do my views about the prison system have to do with abortion? Another red herring?
There you go buddy. I think I got them all, the serious ones, anyway, bullet-pointed for your convenience. Let’s see what you got.
Now a general comment to try to clear up my previous comment, since I don’t think you even tried to understand it:
I never said atheists reject morality. I said most modern atheists reject the natural law. Groups like the Brights are very vocal about their belief in morality but when you press them it turns out to rest on not much more than the Golden Rule. That’s a good start. I say it’s not enough. Most Brights reject the natural law as supernatural. I say it’s knowable by reason alone. Want to disagree with me? Fine. But don’t go accusing me of making claims I didn’t make.
I have made no claims that require what you regard as “magic unicorns” to back them up. I maintain that morality is knowable by reason alone without any revelation. I maintain that the problem with Islam is that it rejects reason and that the problem with atheism is that it limits reason’s application in the moral sphere, largely, I suspect, because of it’s fascination with reason in the spheres of science. I never suggested that Islam and atheism could be fixed by turning them into Judaism. I do say that atheism (I don’t know about Islam) could be improved by atheists returning to their roots and re-discovering the natural law.
I made no religious comments whatsoever. You didn’t read what I said. You just reacted to all the cliches that infest your mind.
Gah, now I did a double posting. Somehow Typo makes that too easy.
@vorfeed:
The natural law doesn’t “exist” any more than the law of gravitation “exists.” The law of gravitation describes how bodies interact with each other under certain circumstances. The natural law is an attempt at formulating how human interactions work based on what we can know about human beings. In economics, natural law considerations would compel us to reject waste and theft because waste and theft are contrary to the very things that property is supposed to conserve for us.
You can also argue against theft from the Golden Rule, by saying that I wouldn’t want anyone to steal from me, so I shouldn’t steal from other people. That works, but I don’t think it gets at the rock-bottom reality. It’s a handy guide when trying to determine the morality of a proposed action, but what ultimately makes the action moral or immoral is whether the action contains a contradiction. Dependent as I am on the security of property, an action of theft on my part would constitute a contradiction by striking at the very thing I depend on.
The light enlightens all men, not just believers, so all societies have glimpsed the moral law and have followed it with varying degrees of fidelity. Prohibitions against murder and adultery and theft are found imperfectly all over the world because they do not depend on any revelation.
I happen to maintain that the Jews were somehow able to follow the moral law more perfectly and at a far earlier age than any other civilization. I think a comparison of Jewish civilization and Roman civilization in the first century supports that claim. Roman infanticide and gladiatorial games makes most of us shudder. The Jews were not perfect either, but they avoided many mistakes made by their neighbors. I say it was because of divine assistance but you could also regard it as a historical accident.
Yes, I maintain that there is a natural law distinction between killing and murder. It is expressed in everyday language, which, while not an arbiter, is nevertheless a useful guide.
Generally, the distinction is said to be the difference between the ending the life of a human, and pre-meditatively ending the life of a human.
I would be interested to hear why you think that the execution of the death penalty is not pre-meditative.
I maintain that morality is knowable by reason alone without any revelation.
I would also very much like to see you prove morality by reason. Please list all of your starting assumptions.
The kosher laws are for the Jews.
Yes. And eparchos is Jewish.
By the way, I am still waiting for you to present some evidence in favor of natural law. You keep asserting that it exists, and can be known through reason, yet you offer no proof of your reasoning. I would be really interested to see it, so please post it!
In case you are not aware, “Natural Law” is a term with meaning. It means, in the common parlance, moral objectivism. As far as the terms “murder” vs. “killing”, murder, in English, is a premeditated killing. Like, for example, the murder of a criminal. Or, if you prefer more clinical terms, the premeditated killing of a convicted felon. THAT is the difference you speak of, which I did not bother bringing up earlier as it, in fact, weakens your argument by semantically proving that the death penalty is, in fact, murder by definition.
Yes, tradition demands that I not eat pork. Since my mother was a jew and I am, by that same tradition, a jew. I thought you could infer that. Consider yourself proven wrong.
As far as John the Baptist goes, I guess I’m wrong if you take Christianity’s prophets into account (which I should have for my Christianity-based argument). I lapsed for a moment there, sorry, I was going for lowest-common-denominator reasoning, as it seemed appropriate.
Well, according to the statistics I looked at and the doctor I spoke to, no, D&E is not used unless it is the ONLY method. However, I was not referring to D&E or SC in the above, as the current methods practiced by doctors whe perform abortions bear no resemblance to the butchery you described above. Also, no, I would not choose to criminalize abortion in that case, as I do not believe that an unborn fetus is the equivalent of an adult person, nor do I believe that it is within my rights to force people to suffer because of some “natural law”. I am not a moral objectivist.
Yes, I state that unborn fetuses are “unformed blobs of protoplasm” in the sense that they have just as much capability of living on their own as, say, my lung. If you took my lung out of my body, it would not sprout legs and wander off to the local church. It would die. So would a fetus. Fetuses have not been commonly known to use tools, engage in social activities, read the Bible, or engage in any other common objective measurement of what makes a person a person. The only similarity they share with adult humans is at the genetic level. I won’t bother to ask if you would consider the actual, real scientific evidence which demonstrates clearly what a fetus really is as it clearly won’t change your patriarchal moralist stance one shred.
Let’s talk about Natural Law a bit more. You say it’s objectively proveable. If that is the case, I’d love to see a proof of it, since it always relies on an ultimate unproveable law-maker. The very definition of moral objectivism implies a higher power to which the ultimate moral is appealable.
As far as you not having said that atheists reject morality, “And modern atheism has rejected the natural law underpinnings of Judaism.” Again, natural law is YOUR DEFINITION of morals. How can you possibly have made that above statement, which translates into “Modern Atheism rejects my form of morality.” without implying that atheists reject morality?
If you maintain that you can prove morality by reason, I challenge you to do so. If you can, you will be world famous, since nobody else has seemed to be able to do so in the last 2000 years or so.
I assume that your religion is so ingrained in you that you don’t see DISCUSSING RELIGIOUS BELIEFS as being “religious comments”, but I submit that you are a smidge off-base with that one.
I don’t know why I bother discussing this sort of thing with people who make statements like “atheism is the biggest religious movement in the West” when the actual statistics show a massive increase in fundamentalist Christians in the West. I mean, where do you get your facts? Because they aren’t.
> And eparchos is Jewish.
Way to miss the point. Atheists of Jewish extraction are no more liable for the covenant law than Gentiles. They are liable for the natural law, which proscribes theft, because that proscription does not depend on revelation.
> Generally, the distinction is said to be
Wrong. That’s not said generally or otherwise. “Pre-meditated” is part of the definition of first-degree murder, but not second-degree murder and second-degree murder is still murder. Further definition is left as an exercise for the reader.
> Please list all of your starting assumptions.
You’re hilarious. Human life is my starting assumption.
> You keep asserting that it exists
Can you read? I said it doesn’t exist. Does not. I said it’s a description of how things work when they work at all. You might as well ask me to prove that trigonometry exists. It doesn’t “exist”, but it can tell you why your building collapsed.
If you insist on picture-thinking, you could consider the fact of near moral unanimity throughout history and in every place of the globe to be a hint that the whole thing was based on something real and evident to the senses.
But you’ll get closer to the idea with nothing more than a simple maxim: If your action implies a contradiction, you’re violating the natural law.
>Atheists of Jewish extraction are no more liable for the covenant law than Gentiles.
We were discussing 4000 years of tradition. Not religion. Besides which, who’s a goy to tell me what judaism is?
Oops, sorry, you posted while I was typing.
Anyway, I was assuming that you meant “natural law” as in “a single system of right and wrong that exists independent of human beings”, not “a vague collection of just-so ‘human nature’ stories that depend on a single Western viewpoint.”
For example, “might makes right” contains no contradiction that I can see—it works whether you’re strong or weak, and is quite fair because for all humans (save two, I suppose) there exists both someone stronger and someone weaker than they. Yet you said earlier that natural law rejects it. If not by reason of contradiction, then why?
Also, like I said earlier, there are many societies that do not accept “natural law”
- for instance, morality in Japan is based more on societal connections and obligations than on the so-called golden rule. Moral actions there can differ depending on the relative positions of the actors, even in defiance to Western “natural law”. If natural law can be inferred through observation of human behavior, how can societies other than ours -or, in the extreme case, individuals other than ourselves—possibly come to different conclusions about morality?By the way, you play a great many semantic games. Please stop casting about and actually answer my questions! You have STILL given me no evidence for the logical basis of natural law. In fact, you haven’t even given me an argument for it! If this is so important to you, and so clearly evident to every human being, you ought to be able to explain it to me, shouldn’t you?
Wrong. That’s not said generally or otherwise.
Click here: Murder
Even the definition mentions pre-meditation. If pre-meditation is not the difference between murder and killing, what is? Please state it outright, so that I might argue against what you’ve actually said rather than yet another empty inference.
You’re wrong about “pre-meditated”. See my previous comment.
Now that you’ve acknowledged that John the Baptist is part of Christian tradition, will you look at what he said to the Roman soldier and tell me how that squares with your claim that Christianity and Judaisim teach that all (pre-meditated) killing is murder?
Now you grant that suction-curretage and dilation-and-evacuation are performed but they are not barbaric. Is that because the fetus is an “unformed blob of protoplasm,” according to your new definition of that phrase? You also say this “unformed blob of protoplasm” is incapable of living on its own. You further state that the “only similarity they share with adult humans is at the genetic level.” Am I permitted to take these as being the logical grounds whereby you justify abortion practice in the United States? Or do you reserve the right to change your definitions again? If so, could I bother you to do so now, before I spend time exploding your claims?
The natural law does not imply a law-giver any more than the law of universal gravitation implies a law-giver. “Moral objectivism” is just neologism invented by Ayn Rand to put some distance between herself and Thomas Aquinas. If “moral objectivism” requires a law-giver, then not only are you smarter than Thomas Aquinas, you’re smarter than Ayn Rand. You just keep getting better, don’t you?
Now my challenges:
Again I ask you to disprove my claim that Western tradition has consistently seen a difference between killing and murder.
Again I ask you to tell me how John the Baptist’s words to the Roman soldier can be squared with your claim that Christianity and Judaisim teach that all (pre-meditated) killing is murder?
Again I ask for the verses that prove that Christianity calls for a dissolution of temporal government, or a clarification from you of how we can prove or disprove your claim that Christianity teaches that no sinner may ever judge the crimes of another.
Finally, I ask you to show me where in this whole conversation I’ve claimed to base any step of my reasoning on revelation, or, since you think I’m an idiot, where you say I have a logical hiatus needing revelation to make the connection.
If you can’t or won’t answer these challenges, you’re a phony.
@ vorfeed
The murder link doesn’t work for me. Here’s my challenge for you.
Major premise: second-degree murder is murder. Minor premise: second-degree murder does not entail pre-meditition. Conclusion: Murder does not require pre-meditation.
Premise: First-degree murder is murder. Minor premise: First-degree murder entails pre-meditation. Conclusion: Some kinds of murder entail pre-meditiation.
Inference: Some murder involves pre-meditiation. Some does not. Pre-meditation is not a defining characteristic of murder.
Prove my inference wrong. The clock is ticking!
I’m not planning on bothering to “offer up proof” of anything you’ve requested until you go and read up on the following: Straw Man argument. Implication. Logic. Debate.
If you can’t or won’t answer any of the challenges I’ve already issued, you’re a phony.
I wasn’t aware of any challenges. Give me a list please so I know if I got them all.
A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.
Inference is the act or process of deriving a conclusion based solely on what one already knows.
Logic is a rather huge topic. You will not respond till I re-read Aristotle’s Organon? That will take a while. Debate means a lot of things. Is there a particular field of meaning you want to direct my attention to?
Do I pass on the first two? Can you clarify your conditions for the other two?
Prove my inference wrong. The clock is ticking!
Sure. First, your inference works from the legal definition of murder, while your earlier claim worked from the common definition. Therefore, your inference proves something about law, but not about natural law. For example, the definitions of first and second degree murder change depending on one’s state or nation. This makes them an inconsistent basis for a general proof.
Way to serve up YET MORE semantics rather than an argument. Once again, if you consider there to be a difference between murder and killing, please clearly state that difference! Also, you may want to go back and actually address some of the questions I’ve had for you from the beginning. For the third time, how do you account for cultures and humans that do not operate according to “natural law”?
Does the common definition of murder, whatever that is, see no difference between the serial killer who picks victims in cold-blood and the betrayed wife who shoots her husband’s lover in a sudden fit of jealous rage? Does it see no extenuation in insanity or immaturity? Does the common definition consider the killing of an enemy in wartime to be equivalent to the killing of an aged aunt for her money? Is the legal definition an absolutely arbitrary construct totally disconnected from the “common definition”?
If you answer yes, I resign.
> For the third time, how do you account for cultures and humans that do not operate according to “natural law”?
You may think you asked me that, but you never did till now.
You did ask me about peoples that achieve civilization “despite lacking the Western concept of natural law.”
OK, I grant that they lack the “concept of natural law.” But I said several posts before that they still see the natural law, whether they call it that or not. I say that some will rationalize it by the Golden Rule and other societies may rationalize it by other methods, such as the examples you give of Japan. I said that those are not true moral foundations but the similar results achieved by these different approaches indicates that they are all actually founded on something more universal than any particular cultural tradition. And that universal thing is humanity.
Mr. Herrick, if you can’t be bothered to actually read what I have already written, what REASON should I have to write more? As much fun as it is to continually defeat the vast majority of your arguments using logic and reason and debate, you somehow take the joy out of it when you don’t understand what has happened to you.
Since you bring it up, I do recommend a course in the classical philosophers for you, as well as such modern philosophers as Ludwig Wittgenstein and Jean-Paul Sartre. (Wittgenstein was a Christian, but I doubt you’ll find his logic palatable.) I also recommend reading some David Hume. In particular reference to moral objectivism, I suggest reading “Beyond Good and Evil” by Friedrich Nietzsche, a strong believer in the message of Christ. Note that I asked you to look up “implication” and not “inference”.
Don’t call me “Mr. Herrick” please.
OK, eparchos, I’ll do your work for you. I went back looking for “challenges.” Here’s what I found.
You called me a moron and a wacko. That’s a challenge in the sense that if you had the guts to say it to my face, which you don’t, I would have to exercise a lot of restraint not to punch you in the nose.
You challenged me to “not be so incredibly humble about it.” I’ll write that off as sarcasm.
You challenged me to “Consider [myself] proven wrong” on your Judaism. I’ve given some tentative refutations, but in the spirit of conciliarity, I’ll consider myself proven wrong for now because there are other things I find more interesting at the moment.
You challenged me to “Tell me again about ‘humility’ when I am being told that I am LESSER THAN YOU because I lack the belief in magical ponies which you possess.” I’m going to call that sarcasm again unless you clarify. Also, there’s a straw man in there.
There’s a non-challenge, here. “I won’t bother to ask if you would consider the actual, real scientific evidence which demonstrates clearly what a fetus really is as it clearly won’t change your patriarchal moralist stance one shred.” I get to ignore that, I guess.
This is a pretty good challenge, actually: “How can you possibly have made that above statement, which translates into ‘Modern Atheism rejects my form of morality.’ without implying that atheists reject morality?” Good question and it made me think. I believe I am justified in saying “Modern atheism rejects the natural law but not morality” because modern atheism aims to base many ethical decisions on valid practical techniques, such as the Golden Rule, which do in fact result in moral behavior. I say they are impaired, but not blind, and that an understanding of the natural law could help improve their moral vision.
And finally, here’s a bona fide challenge: “If you maintain that you can prove morality by reason, I challenge you to do so. I’d love to see a proof of it, since it always relies on an ultimate unproveable law-maker.” I’ve already used Ayn Rand to prove that it doesn’t always rely an an ultimate unproveable law-maker. However, a full proof, as you say, is rather ambitious and I don’t claim to be equal to the task. I certainly can’t do it in one posting. It’s the job of a long, long conversation. If you make this the pre-requisite for any further communication, you have set unrealistic and unfair conditions. I’ve given you simple, defined, finite challenges but before you’ll look up even a single Bible verse, you demand a complete prolegomenon to any future metaphysics from me. Your sense of proportion is a little out of kilter.
So here’s your score: One stupendously unmeetable challenge, one good thinking point, a bunch of sarcastic red herrings, several noticeable insults, and a general tone of contempt. You’ve consistently assumed that I’m an intellectual pygmy and presumed to offer me advice on philosophical reading. I’ve read every author and every book you’ve mentioned by name. Not good enough?
You atheists always say you’re so logical. I’ve met fourth-graders who are more logical and polite than you have been.
I believe I’ve met your challenges, and where that is not quite possible in so short a space of time, I’ve explained why it is not possible and called you to further communication. Do you have the guts for it?
Oh yeah. Inference proceeds from implication. Whoopdidoo. Now you read up on gnats and camels.
If you answer yes, I resign.
I told you before that I am not interested in semantics, nor in arguing over empty inferences. Once again, if there is a difference between murder and killing, what is that difference? State it clearly, please! I am not interested in rhetorical questions, nor in the Socratic method. Please state your case directly.
But I said several posts before that they still see the natural law, whether they call it that or not.
No, they don’t. You said that the natural law is based on humanity, but the idea that humanity has been the driving ideal of all human societies is laughable. For example, ask the Norse, the Japanese, or the Aztecs about how paramount humanity is. You yourself have given examples of societies that don’t follow the law, or do so imperfectly
- the Romans were one example given, as were Islam and Modern Atheists -how could these ways of thinking even exist if your natural law is universal?I said that those are not true moral foundations but the similar results achieved by these different approaches indicates that they are all actually founded on something more universal than any particular cultural tradition. And that universal thing is humanity.
Again, some systems do not take humanity as their paramount value. In fact, most human systems throughout history do not—most place paramount importance on either gods or nature, and are willing to sacrifice or subordinate humans to these forces. If the natural law is universal, how is it that it has only been around for a fraction of the time that humanity has existed, and some people and societies don’t follow it even today?
Here’s the answer: because your “natural law” is but one possible basis for human society. You said earlier that the natural law is like the law of gravitation. Well, if I could find even one object that falls up instead of down, this would be enough to disprove the law of gravitation. Yet I’ve given you plenty of examples of human systems that do not place paramount importance on humanity
- and a few, like the Norse and Aztecs, that actually consider humanity to be of insignificant importance -and you’re still talking about your supposed “law” of humanity. Sorry, but it’s not a law. I should know, as I myself am not a humanist, and yet I continue to exist! It seems to me that this would be impossible, if your natural law were a law on par with that of gravitation.By the way, what about “might makes right”? I asked you about that earlier, and I’d still be interested to hear why that idea doesn’t count as part of the natural law. It seems to me that it should count, since it contains no contradiction…
For your information, I would have no problem telling you what I think to your face. I also would not punch you, because I’m a horrible atheist who also doesn’t believe in violence. My general tone of contempt began as a reaction to your ill-informed bigotry, which I found appalling. I aplogize for it, but I do get a bit worked up sometimes (as a poor excuse goes, it’s what I’ve got)
>You challenged me to “Tell me again about ‘humility’ when I am being told that I am LESSER THAN YOU because I lack the belief in magical ponies which you possess.” I’m going to call that sarcasm again unless you clarify. Also, there’s a straw man in there.
To rephrase that statement, I would put it so: Abrahamic religions all treat outsiders as inferiors. Thus, how can a member of one of those religions claim a lack of “humility” in the part of a non-member when they themselves believe that they are qualitatively greater than all non-members? Essentially, that statement was pointing out and expanding on one of the more offensive generalizations in your first comment.
You have not proven anything by invoking Ayn Rand or Thomas Aquinas, you have referenced them. In fact, Ayn Rand is well known for her morally subjective views whereas Aquinas referenced god as the ultimate fountainhead of morality. rand was strongly opposed to altruism, and is well known for emphasizing only responsibility to one’s self, whereas Aquinas stated ”...for the knowledge of any truth whatsoever man needs Divine help…”. You could hardly have picked more oppositional philosophies. To be fair, Rand believed in free will, which was Aquinas’ belief as well, but let me quote Rand on free will and you can see how different their views are. “Man is a being with free will; therefore, each man is potentially good or evil, and it’s up to him and only him (through his reasoning mind) to decide which he wants to be. ” Rand on God: “God… a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man’s power to conceive. ” So, as you can see, referencing Rand on moral objectivity (which was what i asked about), you imply that moral objectivism is false. Stating that she was simply repeating Aquinas, besides being a false statement, implies that you don’t know what Aquinas said about moral objectivism, which was that morals are objective. I can draw no proof from a contradiction. As far as looking up Bible verses goes, I’m positive that one can find a great many to both support my position and equally certain that one can find many to support yours. I tried to keep it simple by referring to what could be considered the ultimate axioms, which are the ten commandments and Christ, but if you won’t accept that then I really don’t think that getting into a bible-quoting contest is going to serve the point.
>Again I ask you to disprove my claim that Western tradition has consistently seen a difference between killing and murder.
I cannot disprove that, but it falls into a realm of a moral grey area which a) I fundamentally do not agree with, and b) is not germane to my point. My point is that killing people is immoral, and that one cannot kill another without acting immorally. The original reason I brought this up was because people who are opposed to abortion for religious reasons are also usually proponents of capital punishment. Assuming the axiom that a fetus is a human being, how can one possibly argue that killing one human being is OK whereas killing another is not? I’m sorry, but moral grey areas don’t apply in this case. Murder or killing, whatever you call it, is not a grey area by any means. You can’t be “sort of dead” and you can’t be “sort of a murderer”. You either are or you aren’t, morally. Legal definitions are ETHICAL, and do not pretend to be moral. If you really want me to go read up on John the baptist, I will. He seems an interesting character. And I also apologize for calling you “Mr. Herrick”. And, by the way, I am a fat man and, hence, I have a lot of guts.
I see your verse-slinging skills extend to Aquinas also. You quote him as saying: “for the knowledge of any truth whatsoever man needs Divine help.” Guess what? He also wrote “Therefore, God does not exist.” Troublesome? I’ll let you in on the secret.
The Summa Theologica is written in the form of statements, objections and refutations. You poor sap, you quoted from the objection, which he proceeds to refute three paragraphs later. In his refutation, which represents Aquinas’ real opinion, he states “And thus the human understanding has a form, viz. intelligible light, which of itself is sufficient for knowing certain intelligible things, viz. those we can come to know through the senses…. [H]e does not need a new light added to his natural light, in order to know the truth in all things, but only in some that surpass his natural knowledge.”
You call me a moron and a wacko and call my beliefs “ill-informed bigotry.” You accuse me of being incapable of following a syllogism. You suggest that I require remedial education in philosophy which you claim to be qualified to provide. Mister, you don’t even know how to read a book. That’s pathetic.
That little bit of well-deserved and highly gratifying nose-punching done, I move now to the point.
Now you grant that you can’t answer my first challenge. Thank you. However, now you say it is not germane. I consider it very germane. You did not state only that you consider it inconsistent to be anti-abortion and pro-death-penalty. That would be a fine contention that I would listen to with interest and patience. But you went far, far beyond that. You stated with perfect certainty
- the same certainty with which you trotted out your retarded Aquinas quotation -that such is also the teaching of Christianity. You further suggested that Christian who fails to see that is stupid and a hypocrite.Now, do you retract your claim that Christianity teaches no difference between murder and killing, or do I still have to defend the intelligence of Christians who claim that it does? I’m not asking you to agree that killing is different from murder. I’m only asking you to back down from your claim that Christianity agrees with you on that. If you can do that, we can move on to more interesting things.
I think you’ve refined one of your many nasty bits of childish sarcasm into a challenge, so I’ll answer it now. You ask “how can a member of one of those religions claim a lack of ‘humility’ in the part of a non-member when they themselves believe that they are qualitatively greater than all non-members?”. The only thing I ever said was that Islam’s justification for violence shows greater humility than atheism’s justifications for violence because Islam’s are based on the supposed revelations from God who, if he exists, might be expected to give good advice, and that any reliance on tradition, however insane, is intrinsically more humble than the reliance of an atheist on his own thoughts with no reference to or even knowledge of the thoughts of other smart people who have lived before him. I consider a confident, pompous misquotation of Aquinas to be incompatible with humility, for example. However, I do not state here that humility is a virtue. Since I basically said that Islamic humility leads to terrorism, I can hardly be accused of holding up humility as the surpassing virtue that justifies all actions. So if you want to say that Jews and Christians and Muslims are demonically prideful, I’ll go along with you for now. I’ll have more to say after you answer my remaining challenges. For your reference they are:
Disprove that western tradition has not made a distinction between killing and murder. You’ve told me what you believe, but I still want to know what you say Christianity says about it, since that was the foundation of your accusing Christians of being morons and wackos. You say you can’t disprove it. So do you back off?
Comment on John the Baptist and the soldier. Not necessary if you back off on the challenge above.
Give me proof or explanation of how it can be proved or disproved that Christianity requires that no sinner ever judge the crimes of another. Not necessary if you back off on challenge one.
Show me where I have a logical hiatus requiring revelation to bridge the gap. Still an open challenge.
And two new ones, both easy:
Use more line breaks in your screeds. The infinite grayness is giving me a headache.
Do not give me any more laughable crap about how I should read Hume or Nietzsche (which I can spell without Googling and pronounce without fear) because I’m holding your hilariously sophomoric Aquinas gaffe over your head and not forgetting it any time soon.
I got your number vorfeed. Everything is linguistic! Semantics! Booga booga!
Tell me, what’s not a linguistic argument, in your view?
I never said that natural law claims that humanity is the “driving ideal” or the “paramount value.” Sorry, just never said that. Learn to listen.
Here, this one’s free: Do you think forced conversion is immoral? I do. I think it’s immoral because it implies a contradiction of what conversion is, which is only meaningful as the free act of a free agent. That’s an argument based on the natural law because it’s based on the nature of conversion, force, freedom and human beings.
You could also object to it as a violation of the Golden Rule. But I suggest that the Golden Rule is the praxis of morality and the natural law is the theory.
You can’t even try to come up with a better definition of murder? OK. No skin off my nose.
I’ll respond to the rest of your statement later, when I’ve gotten some sleep. As far as your interpretation of Aquinas goes, you sem to miss the point that Aquinas believed in two forms of DIVINE REVELATION, empirical revelation (which is what you refer to in your attempted insult to my ability to read and your attack on my education) and special revelation. These are the methods to which knowledge is achieved, BOTH forms of knowledge of divine provenance. Hence, all truth is of divine origin. Which is definitely the opposite of what Rand stated. My “Aquinas gaffe” is a representation of an actual understanding of his writings, which I was made to study when I was 14, along with Augustine. I’m sorry to have bothered to quote him in reference to your clear misinterpretation of the relationship of his work to Ayn Rand’s, since you apparently don’t understand a representative, contextual quote.
I would really like you to quote me a portion of the bible which clearly and distinctly defines the difference between Murder and Killing. And I would also like you to be able to prove to me that said distinction has not been made in one of the many revisions of the Bible. I think that the fundamental messages of the Bible are discernable, despite much meddling throughout this 4000 years of tradition, but I am also aware of the teachings of the Talmud and that the New Testament and the Koran all have significant departures from the Old Testament. this “Natural law” you make such an issue of must be so incredibly fundamental that the ancient jews were able to follow it precisely. If so, why did the Pharisees see to change many of the traditions of this rule of natural law, if it’s so great? This is where the majority of these fine semantic distinctions you claim exist must arise, as far as I can tell. If that is the case, then your argument for “natural law” being fundamental to human decency falls apart. Such a wonderful natural law as that wouldn’t really need to be revised and updated to allow and then later dismiss the outright killing of gentiles such as yourself, now would it? For your information, by the way, I was in no way “backing off”. I was conceding a few points and trying to be polite about it, which apparently only earns me derision and accusations of retardation from you. Ah, the famed forgiveness of the Christian. How noble of you. I offer an olive branch and you try to take my hand off at the wrist. Anyhoo, later. I’ve got sleep to catch up on.
Tell me, what’s not a linguistic argument, in your view?
Well, how about a clear statement that does not begin with such avoidance tactics as “I never said blah blah blah”? For example, when one says, “they are all actually founded on something more universal than any particular cultural tradition. And that universal thing is humanity”, and then one’s opponent says, “why, there are many systems of belief in which humanity is not important”, and then you say, “I never said anything about importance”, you’re arguing based on semantics. You have entirely ignored your opponent’s point in order to play with words rather than meaning.
Here, I’ll say it just one more time: if all human traditions are “founded on humanity”
- and here, I assume you mean something less tautological than “yes, they are ‘founded on humanity’ because they were invented by human beings” -then you’re implying that humanity is important to these traditions. Also, you have argued from a humanistic perspective throughout this conversation, so it’s safe to assume that you do indeed believe that humanistic ideals are a part of your “natural law”. Yet I’ve given you some examples of human traditions in which humanity is not considered important; some modern ones, even, and all quite civilized and advanced, given the period in which they existed. This ought to give you something to think about, if you are interested in thinking as well as in ignoring direct questions and hiding behind nit-picking statements like “I never said X”.If, on the other hand, you are actually trying to say that you have human nature worked out to the level of a physical law, I humbly apologize, Dr. Seldon. I have always been a very great fan of yours!
Wrong again about Aquinas. He states that all knowledge has God as its cause because he believes all being has God as its cause. However, that is nothing like your statement that God is the logical ground of all knowledge. Aquinas repudiates that heresy clearly and forcefully. You misrepresented Aquinas’s position. I thought it was ignorance, but now I think it was deliberate sophistry. Ignorance is fine. Ignorance propounded with pomposity in an effort to bamboozle your opponent is a despicable debating technique and one I won’t hesitate to jump on with utmost vehemence.
If you call my attitude “unforgiving” then you’re taking this too personally and maybe your mommie shouldn’t let you out in the playground till you can take a bloody nose now and then. Because you misquoted, pure and simple, and your subsequent rationalization falls flat, so flat. It’s like your claim that the human fetus is an “unformed blob of protoplasm.” But when challenged, you “clarify” that it’s an unformed blob of protoplasm the way a lung is an unformed blob of protoplasm. Of course a lung is nothing in the world like an unformed blob of protoplasm and you know it. This is not just sophistry, it’s desperate sophistry.
You dish it out but you’re a whiner when you get it back. But even your whining is sophistry. You’re not hurt. Your high-toned disgust at my supposedly unforgiving attitude is not sincere. It’s just another ad hominem weapon for you. I’m not falling for that either.
And Aquinas doesn’t believe in two forms of divine revelation, whatever you pretend to mean by that. He does believe in two forms of theology, natural theology and revealed theology. I’ve never heard the phrase “empirical revelation” and I suspect it’s another one of your inventions to blind people with. Your incessant allusion to this or that book or author or idea is pure sophistry that goes nowhere. You remind me of that saying from middle school. If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.
You’re so determined to convince me of how smart you are. So you studied Aquinas when you were 14. Have a gold star. Is anything more important to you than your own good opinion about yourself? And is it so fragile that you need to manufacture that opinion in other people before you can believe it yourself? And why me?
You don’t get to issue new challenges yet. I met your challenges. You sulkily threatened to take your toys and go home if I didn’t answer your challenges. You wouldn’t even list them for me so I combed through your vitriol and found them for you. You accepted my list and you accepted my answers. Since you’re still here, in defiance of your threat, you have tacitly acknowledged the validity of my answers to your challenges. So now you answer my challenges. I’ve played fair and I’ve given you my list. It’s a short list and requires simple answers. Give me some answers and then you can issue some new challenges.
But no more challenges like “Prove to my satisfaction that…”. That’s not a challenge. That’s more sophistry. Stop hedging your challenges around with infinite conditions and back doors. I’ve stated my challenges in short simple sentences. I don’t want to hear any essay-length challenges.
So how about it?
vorfeed: If I am not allowed to repudiate goofy statements that you choose to put in my mouth, then you win. If I said “all human traditions are ‘founded on humanity’”, then you win. If I said that I “have human nature worked out to the level of a physical law”, then you win.
Aw, what the heck.
You win.
I just realized that I’ve been seriously arguing with a madman who equates Margaret Sanger with Stalin. You, sir, are a fanatic. Not to mention your ghastly ignorance about Aquinas. I would just quote large sections of Aquinas to you, but instead I think I’ll stop wasting my time. You clearly have as much knowledge and connection with your own gulture to make your views on it entirely useless. Thus far, your “arguments” have amounted to the following two forms: 1: “I never said that” 2: ad hominem attacks.
You are appallingly ignorant, and a complete and utter waste of my time.
Here, let me show you exactly where I got “all human traditions are ‘founded on humanity’” from your statements:
“The natural law is an attempt at formulating how human interactions work based on what we can know about human beings.”
“The light enlightens all men, not just believers, so all societies have glimpsed the moral law and have followed it with varying degrees of fidelity.”
“OK, I grant that they lack the “concept of natural law.” But I said several posts before that they still see the natural law, whether they call it that or not. I say that some will rationalize it by the Golden Rule and other societies may rationalize it by other methods, such as the examples you give of Japan. I said that those are not true moral foundations but the similar results achieved by these different approaches indicates that they are all actually founded on something more universal than any particular cultural tradition. And that universal thing is humanity.”
In those three statements, you’re claiming that:
A: There exists a “moral law” that “all societies have glimpsed”
and
B: This moral law “is an attempt at formulating how human interactions work based on what we can know about human beings.”
and
C: “similar results achieved by these different approaches indicate[s] that they are all actually founded on something more universal than any particular cultural tradition. And that universal thing is humanity.”
I suggest that these three statements together are equivalent to claiming that:
A: The natural law is equally available to all societies
and
B: The natural law accurately describes how human beings interact
and
C: The natural law is founded on humanity
If the natural law is available to all, accurately describes how humans act, and founded on humanity, this implies that every human system is founded on humanity. If there exists a human system not founded on humanity, either the law is not available to all, or it does not accurately describe how humans act, or it is not founded in humanity. Any of these possibilities are equally damaging to your argument.
For example, you claimed that “near moral unanimity throughout history and in every place of the globe” exists, but I have shown you several times that there isn’t any humanistic “moral unanimity” between cultures. Even the value placed on humanity with respect to the world changes wildly between cultures, as does each culture’s views on murder, theft, and adultery (the last one is so culture-dependent that many cultures both pre-Judeo-Christian and modern don’t even understand the general concept, much less your “unanimous” rules about it.)
You need to admit that your “natural law” is not an external law, but in fact merely your own idea about the way the world should be. Either that, or explain why it is that it does such a poor job of actually describing human behavior!
Or, you could take the third path, and play the “I never meant that” game once again. It’s an easy game for you to play, because I suspect that your “natural law” is about as rigorously defined as a plate of jello. Of course, you could prove me wrong by actually bothering to define it, as I have frequently asked you to do.
Either way, I’m finished here.
Ah, the last refuge of the loser. How pathetic. And you’re so bankrupt that you can’t even trot out a single fact to back up your parting accusations. If you could find one ad hominem argument in my writing, you’d have rubbed my nose in it, as I’ve rubbed your nose in your own fallacies. As it is, you’re right back where you started: name-calling.
It’s a shame, because I’ve had fun. The only thing that makes me mad is to think that you probably surround yourself with people who will be impressed by your out-of-the-blue style of belligerence. Fish like you usually have a keen nose for small ponds. I bet you really hold court around the slurpee machine or at the local college coffee shop or wherever it is you go to troll for impressionable people who you can use to make yourself feel smart.
Having enjoyed all of that, and having nothing to add…
Dan, your software is really fucking these people’s arguments :) Is there some character mapping failure going on?
it is 100% that islam is a best religion. it is areligion of peace