stemann
Time Bandit
Michel, please tell me you don't agree with those 'proofs' you posted. I was all ready for a full and frank account of why they are what the Americans term 'baloney' but mr. guy did a rather excellent job. However, I shall concentrate on these few moral points:
I don't have a problem with that. Just because some people don't like killing doesn't mean that i the absolute truth of it. I don't like cauliflower, but that doesn't mean it is objectively bad.
You think it would be horrible, dear post-maker, but I don't. That is how the world is. Nobody is to say what is right or wrong- but they do anyway, because they believe they know what is right or wrong. How do you know what "The One" condemns or encourages??
Why am I repulsed by the idea of eating cauliflower? God told me that cauliflower is bad. No, it is the sense of "taste" with which I was born.
Similarly, the evolution of humanity and the social world can explain morality. Why do most (but not all) animals have some sort of way of looking after their immediate family (children); they have no moral reason to. It is just innate sensibilities. Unless you contest that God put that same moral code into them, which I personally would not see as a belief any different from that which states he put same moral code into us.
No it wouldn't! Stop using exclamation marks and read a decent book on evolution! Ok?!?!? I am told "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins is good, even if he is a bit more fanatical nowadays.
Number of exclamation marks in a philosophical essay is directly proportional to its truth!!!!!
The Reformation is but a small influence of the Renaissance. Mainly it began after the Black Death killed a load of people, and so a reinvention of the modern world was needed. So, people began to return to the scientifically enquiring principles of the ancient Greek philosophers. I know little about causes of the Renaissance, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't all due to religion.
Ask a psychologist. Fear, love, guilt, the superego, all can reasonably be combined to explain humanity's "craving something 'more' than physical existence" without having to say, "Well, if we all want it, it must exist."
OMFG you're right! So, anyway, let me know how you hope to discover this "absolute truth" for which he is the standard. For all I know, it could be a series of arbitrary books. Oh wait.
I had a personal encouter with Him. He told me things that I am not allowed to repeat here.
Because he doesn't believe in evolution.
The phrase "Outside the mind" is non-cognitive (no pun intended). You can't speculate about "Outside the mind" because the only way to perceive reality is with some sort of mind.
Problem #3 -- The Real World. Let us, for a moment, suppose that everything really is relative (no standards of any kind). That would mean that everybody does what they think is right--setting their own rules for life. The problem comes when one person's rules clash with another's. What if one person decides that killing is a noble thing to do, and so attempts to kill everyone in sight? If things are relative, then killing is just as right as not killing. Cruelty is equal to non-cruelty. Would you have a problem with that? Of course, most of us would.
I don't have a problem with that. Just because some people don't like killing doesn't mean that i the absolute truth of it. I don't like cauliflower, but that doesn't mean it is objectively bad.
When locked in the chambers of philosophy, we can kick around wild ideas about nothing really existing, or nothing being absolute. But the real world greets us when we emerge from that chamber--a world full of life and death, suffering and pleasure, evil and good. If there is no standard of truth in the Universe, then one can never be sure of anything. It is all an accident. We would be free to do as we please--rape, murder, steal, lie, cheat, etc. Who is to say that those things are wrong? A world without absolutes would be horrible indeed!
You think it would be horrible, dear post-maker, but I don't. That is how the world is. Nobody is to say what is right or wrong- but they do anyway, because they believe they know what is right or wrong. How do you know what "The One" condemns or encourages??
Why do people disagree with innocent killing? Why are people repulsed by the idea of sexually abusing little children? Why do we think it is wrong to steal someone else's property? It is because God told us.
Why am I repulsed by the idea of eating cauliflower? God told me that cauliflower is bad. No, it is the sense of "taste" with which I was born.
Similarly, the evolution of humanity and the social world can explain morality. Why do most (but not all) animals have some sort of way of looking after their immediate family (children); they have no moral reason to. It is just innate sensibilities. Unless you contest that God put that same moral code into them, which I personally would not see as a belief any different from that which states he put same moral code into us.
morals certainly did not flow out of millions of years of chance evolution and the survival of the fittest-- in fact, evolution would teach us the exact opposite set of guiding principles!
No it wouldn't! Stop using exclamation marks and read a decent book on evolution! Ok?!?!? I am told "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins is good, even if he is a bit more fanatical nowadays.
Evolution tells us to do whatever it takes to survive and get ahead...not to show love and compassion to the weak!
Number of exclamation marks in a philosophical essay is directly proportional to its truth!!!!!
Proof #2 -- Science. The word science simply means "knowledge." It is the study of what we know, and the quest to know more. Thus, any scientific study must necessarily be founded upon the belief that there are objective realities in the world. (Interestingly enough, many historical scholars surmise that the scientific revolution in the West grew out of the study of the Bible following the "Reformation." As the Bible was printed and distributed, people began to realize that there were laws by which God governed the universe, and began giving up superstition in order to learn about the world God had made.)
The Reformation is but a small influence of the Renaissance. Mainly it began after the Black Death killed a load of people, and so a reinvention of the modern world was needed. So, people began to return to the scientifically enquiring principles of the ancient Greek philosophers. I know little about causes of the Renaissance, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't all due to religion.
Proof #3 -- Religion. All the religions of the world are an attempt to give meaning and definition to life. They represent the fact that humanity is craving something "more" than physical existence. We want assurance for the future, hope for the afterlife, forgiveness for our sins, peace through our struggles, and answers for our deepest questions. Why do we want these things? It seems clear enough that the animal world is not pursuing philosophy or grappling with issues of eternity. If we are mere chance accidents, all flowing out of a common animal ancestor, why did we turn out with an insatiable desire to know and grasp reality?
Ask a psychologist. Fear, love, guilt, the superego, all can reasonably be combined to explain humanity's "craving something 'more' than physical existence" without having to say, "Well, if we all want it, it must exist."
Religion is proof that mankind was built with something more...a higher purpose. There must have been a Creator, personal and purposeful, who implanted in us this desire. If there is a Creator, then there is a reality which He has defined in creation. He becomes the standard for absolute truth.
OMFG you're right! So, anyway, let me know how you hope to discover this "absolute truth" for which he is the standard. For all I know, it could be a series of arbitrary books. Oh wait.
The ultimate proof that there is absolute truth will not come through some clever philosophical argument. It will come from a personal encounter with the One who declared: "I am the Truth."
I had a personal encouter with Him. He told me things that I am not allowed to repeat here.
mr. guy said:What a mess! Considering that "repulsion" to child exploitation is a relatively new ethic, i would think this author's standpoint on "inherant" morality would be even more easily refuted if he was left to prattle on at even greater length. However, i wonder why he doesn't see "love" and "compassion" as evolutionarily advantageous?
Because he doesn't believe in evolution.
Cynic said:Truth exists, but outside the mind does it matter? Outside the mind, does truth exist?
The phrase "Outside the mind" is non-cognitive (no pun intended). You can't speculate about "Outside the mind" because the only way to perceive reality is with some sort of mind.