Subject:
|
Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 16 Nov 2001 23:05:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1171 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Brown writes:
>
> > > If God could be empirically demonstrated, wouldn't that be better then the
> > > current situation, in which he cannot? Surely more people would be "saved,"
> > > and that would seem to me a fine means of determining superiority of method.
> >
> > Ok. When you're in charge of the universe, you set up God as empirically
> > verifiable, and we'll run a comparison study. Until then, the only answer
> > can be "unknown", and you know that.
>
> If you're asserting that a universe in which more people are legitimately
> saved is less desirable than a universe in which fewer people are legimately
> saved, then I think we have another debate on our hands.
I'm not sure where you read that. I'm not asserting any outcome, I'm saying
that the only honest answer I can give is "I don't know". Your whole beef
appears to be that if it isn't verfiable by empirical science it's inferior,
and then you go asking me for an answer to something that can't possibly be
empirically studied. Can you blame me for thinking "WTF?"
> Besides which, 'don't criticize unless you can't do better' is about as
> rhetorically useful as "I'm rubber, you're glue."
??? You don't seem to be reading what I'm writing, Dave! I have no idea
where this came from. I'll admit I was being a bit snide, but only in that
I was tossing yours back at you (empirical study where emprical study does
not apply).
> > > Even with the supposed moral absolute of Christianity, few
> > > people indeed lead a perfectly moral life. Pragmatically speaking, is an
> > > unachievable but perfect morality any better than an achievable but
> > > incomplete morality?
> >
> > Nice trap question.
>
> Not a trap question at all, but a reasonable result of your observation.
It is a trap question, in that you're giving an "A or B" question, when I
don't think the options you present are the only valid options. Why is an
achievable and perfect morality not in your equation?
> Your comment re: social evolution seems to suggest that at some point, with
> sufficient social evolution, man can divorce morality from a higher
> authority (and some people have done so already). When that happens, what's
> the point of a higher authority?
If that happens (When is not a given): Very little. It is analogous (in my
mind, and in the imagery of most christian religion) to a parent-child
relationship. Children are guided and taught by their parents in many
things, but eventually grow up and need less guidance. When a child becomes
an adult (leaving aside the fuzziness of that transition for a moment), do
their parents suddenly become irrelevant, or cease to be?
All of that leaves aside the fact that I wasn't observing anything; I was
responding to your suggestion (via Hume) that a higher authority wasn't
necessary to achieve absolute morality (if such exists). Reading back, I
would edit "Probably true" to "possibly true" as more accurate to my
opinions. I do agree that belief in God isn't necessary to achieve a high
moral standard, but I don't see how that is relevent to whether or not God
exists.
thanks,
James
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
117 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
