The skinny on Pfleger
On June 3, Chicago Cardinal Francis George placed liberal big mouth Fr. Michael Pfleger on a 2-week leave, a sentence much too light and years too late for Catholic Citizens of IL, which has started a drive to get Pfleger pfired.
Meanwhile, Pfleger’s parish members pfreaked, just as they always do when the Archdiocese threatens to remove him. This time they added a teen hunger strike as a piece de resistance. From the Chicago Sun-Times, yesterday:
Defiant St. Sabina parishioners demanded Cardinal Francis George reinstate their controversial pastor, the Rev. Michael Pfleger, just hours after he was removed Tuesday from his post against his wishes….
“We respectfully request the cardinal immediately reinstate Father Pfleger as full pastor of St. Sabina,” Gerald Stewart, president of the parish council, told an estimated 2,000 people packed into the South Side church Tuesday evening. The group included longtime Pfleger friend the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who has been blasted for his own controversial statements on race.
Stewart said parishioners wanted an immediate meeting with the cardinal to discuss “the future of the entire faith community of St. Sabina.” Pfleger did not attend the prayer service, but was on the St. Sabina campus, said Randall Blakey, a parish Cabinet member. Pfleger and Wright went out to dinner after the service.
On Tuesday afternoon, George issued a statement saying he asked Pfleger to “step back” and take a “couple of weeks” of leave from St. Sabina.
“Father Pfleger does not believe this to be the right step at this time,” the statement read. “While respecting his disagreement, I have nevertheless asked him to use this opportunity to reflect on his recent statements and actions in the light of the Church’s regulations for all Catholic priests.”
Church members are concerned that the leave could be more than a couple of weeks….
About 15 members of a St. Sabina young adult group called Passing the Baton started a hunger strike in the church sanctuary Tuesday. Blair Matthews, 18, said the group planned to “fast and pray” inside the church until Pfleger is reinstated….
Pfleger is clearly sticking around to pfan the pflames.
This isn’t going to end well, no matter what the Cardinal does. Catholic Citizens wrote, “A few years ago, Pfleger threatened to start a new church rather than be re-assigned. He has started a new church, but on Archdiocese of Chicago property.” That’s how stalwart Catholics view Pfleger and his parish posse.
If the Cardinal tries to permanently move Pfleger, I can’t imagine how St. Sabina’s will react. But if the Cardinal reinstates Pfleger, he’ll lose even more respect from among Chicago’s pfaithful on a topic that is already a sore spot.
I’m pfriends with many CC leaders, and believe me, they wouldn’t take a reinstatement of Pfleger quietly. He has so many times shown pflagrant disregard for the preborn by the public figures he supports, like Jackson, Wright, Obama, and Sharpton.
BTW, have you read Pfleger’s apology letter? It reads more like an “I’m so terribly misunderstood, waaa waaa waaa” letter.
[Photo courtesy of the Chicago Tribune]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Pfather Pfleger indeed needs to step back. I don’t live in Chicago, but how pfar and in what direction must he step back into Lake Michigan? He needs to cool off!
;)
Will someone please explain to me why Jill is giving all this attention to Pfleger? What does this really have to do with the pro-life cause? Because he supports some pro-choice politicians? Many other religous leaders do as well, unfortunately. Is it to quietly criticize the Catholic church by hilighting its most infamous priest?
I guess I just don’t understand the obsession with Pfleger.
Anon.
What difference is it to you what Jill writes about?
Second. What difference does it make to you, what a Catholic Cardinal does to a priest who plays the role of a vaudville actor? Have you no idea that Pfleger is putting on a show for his parishoners as does Rev. Wright?
This man is not Catholic. If he wants to protest Church Authority and lead his flock to protest, then be protestants. The rest of us respect Christ’s respresentative.
A pastor is supposed to shepherd the flock not draw attention to himself or become a factious man within the faith community.
This guy just shows you how much of a “uniter” Obamanatiion will be since he has been mentored by some of the worst examples of Churchianity in the world.
yllas,
I come to this site to read about pro-life issues and read the opinions and discussions of other pro-lifers.
Everyone outside his parish, both Catholic and non-Catholic, is aware that Pfleger is nothing but an attention-grabbing clown. That’s why it makes no difference to me what the Cardinal has to say to or about him, and why I wonder why Jill is so interested.
You know what’s so cool about blogs? People can talk about whatever they want.
. . . and why I wonder why Jill is so interested.
Posted by: Anonymous at June 5, 2008 11:08 AM
You have to understand Jill is on her anti-Obama rant 24/7 now, and everyone he has ever met is subject to ridicule.
One of the vows taken by a priest during his Ordination is the vow of Obedience.
Obedience. To the Pope, to Church teachings and Church authority.
Pfleger needs to assess his situation if he STILL wants to be Catholic priest.
As anon stated..there’s nothing holding him back on leaving the Church and creating his own ‘protestant’ group.
Is Jill Catholic?
No. Jill is Protestant.
Jill said: I’m pfriends with many CC leaders, and believe me, they wouldn’t take a reinstatement of Pfleger quietly.
Can you tell us who these CC leaders are and what they have said to you? I assume you are talking about leaders in the Catholic Church; please correct me if I’m wrong.
Jill,
Maybe I misunderstood your statement I referred to above. “CC” must be referring to leaders of the Catholic Citizens of Illinois group which you quote in the article.
If anyone is interested, there is a list of the group’s Board of Directors, etc., on their website (see link in Jill’s article) which has extensive coverage of the Fr. Pfleger story from their viewpoint.
yawn.
I read Father Pfleger’s letter of apology. It is short and sweet. I found it to be sincere.
I believe there are two types of people in this world. Realists and idealists. I believe Father Pfleger is the latter. No matter what happens when this controversy is over, I think he will find a place within the Catholic Church where he can continue to do the work he desires to do. He needs our prayers, not our condemnation. The final paragraph of his letter is touching and goes like this:
“Hate me if you will. Hate my imperfect presentation. Hate my imperfect dramatization. Hate my imperfect articulation. I have never presumed to be anything, but imperfect, but I pray I can still beat the drum of justice, even if sometimes I am off beat.
Thank you.”
The Sun Times article is “fanning the fire”, so to speak, with their choice of wording, IMO. According to the Sun Times:
About 15 members of a St. Sabina young adult group called Passing the Baton started a hunger strike in the church sanctuary Tuesday. Blair Matthews, 18, said the group planned to “fast and pray” inside the church until Pfleger is reinstated….
“Fasting and praying” is not necessarily the same as a “hunger strike.” Fasting may include eating small amounts of food and water.
Defiant St. Sabina parishioners demanded Cardinal Francis George reinstate their controversial pastor, the Rev. Michael Pfleger, just hours after he was removed Tuesday from his post against his wishes.
“We respectfully request the cardinal immediately reinstate Father Pfleger as full pastor of St. Sabina,” Gerald Stewart, president of the parish council, told an estimated 2,000 people packed into the South Side church Tuesday evening.
A “respectful request” is hardly a demand.
It would be nice if the Sun Times could leave out the hyperbole and just tell the story. The story is controversial enough.
“We respectfully request the cardinal immediately reinstate Father Pfleger as full pastor of St. Sabina”
Because the Church is a democracy!
Yeah, Bobby…I believe the parishioners of St. Sabina’s should be following the Teachings of the Church instead of the ‘skewed’ preachings of it’s pastor.
I know, RSD. We as a culture have lost the sense of obedience as a virtue. It is little wonder that a nation that puts so much emphasis on the autonomy of the individual accepts abortion and other unthinkable evils.
Anon, 10:29a, said: “Will someone please explain to me why Jill is giving all this attention to Pfleger?… I guess I just don’t understand the obsession with Pfleger.”
First, if you’ve read me awhile, I hope you’ve noticed I try to close the loop on any stories I blog on. At least one person similarly complained about my continuing coverage of the Yale/Aliza Svarts abortion-as-art-project story. It was a saga I wanted to see through for my readers. I want you to have confidence you’ll hear the end of something I start here.
Second, I am indeed personally interested in Pfleger and have blogged on him from time to time in the past few months, 6 to be exact.
Third, there is now Pfleger’s Obama connection, and as Hal noted, I’m keenly interested in Obama.
So I had 2 good (to myself, anyway) reasons to cover Pfleger’s latest debacle to start.
I always write about what interests me. Sometimes that won’t match what interests you, and in that case I hope you’ll simply blow off my posts that don’t interest you but stick around for those that do.
Bobby,that is interesting. I wonder why some people value obediance over autonomy and others autonomy over obedience?
I know that for me, freedom and autonomy win every time. (but you probably knew that already)
I’m all in favor of Pfleger having freedom and autonomy…. in fact, I hope he becomes Obama’s campaign manager….
The next thing you know, they’ll transfer the fool to Los Angeles and Cardinal Mahoney will accept him with open arms.
Hey Hal. Actually, I would put freedom in the category with obedience. I believe that true freedom is not found in doing whatever one wants to do i.e. licence, but authentic freedom consists in the ability to choose the good. Only then are we truly free and not a slave to vice.
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at June 5, 2008 1:37 PM
Bobby, I couldn’t agree more. Unfortunately why would the people of St. Sabina’s see obedience as a virtue with Pfleger as their example?
Bobby: 2:09: Good answer to a tough question!
Jill and Mods,
For a couple months now, there’s an error message that frequently comes up when trying to post:
Publish error in template ‘Comment Response’:
Error in tag: Can’t find included template module ‘Header’
There’s a similar one that always (to my knowledge) comes up if you click on the “Preview” button.
“. . . but authentic freedom consists in the ability to choose the good”
Sure, but whose concept of good? Obedience is going with the Church, or the Government, or the Parent, etc. Freedom is figuring it out yourself.
Doug – looking into that issue, currently coming up to speed on a lot of stuff. Hope to resolve it soon – Chris
Posted by: Hal at June 5, 2008 2:24 PM
That’s the issue. You believe good is relative. I don’t. That’s why you’ll never see it the way many on this board do.
Some “good” is relative, some is absolute. None, in my view, comes from God. That’s why I’ll never see it the way many on this board do.
In the interest of calling a spade a spade, at least for our purposes on this site, Pfleger supports Obama, Obama supports abortion. I’m not sure where the media gets off on criticizing an organization for disciplining one of its workers.
Pfleger is now a national character and a vocal supporter of a pro-abortion presidential candidate. The Catholic Church has a (LITERALLY) God-given right to get their name as far removed as possible from a “grave moral evil.”
The Church is anti-war, anti-death penalty, pro-environment, pro-civil rights, anti-abortion, and pro-family. No candidate is perfect, as we all know from our pro-life opinions of McCain. But I, as a good-conscience Catholic, cannot vote for a candidate that supports abortion. And I am awfully proud to be part of a Church that is not divided on this eternally important issue. Pfleger’s supporters are sorely mistaken if they think that this 2000-year-old institution will bow to the will of a charismatic pro-abort and his over-eccentric cheerleaders.
Lots of pro-life people are supporting Obama. Some say he’s the most pro-life candidate out there. Not really my issue, so I’m not sure.
“We as a culture have lost the sense of obedience as a virtue”
—————————————
I would add ‘humility’ and basic decency to the list…
authentic freedom consists in the ability to choose the good
Bobby, Hal went in this direction too, but authentic freedom consists of not being subject to what others deem as “good,” among other things.
But Doug, that’s exactly what I said freedom isn’t. YOU deem for yourself what is good and what is not good. YOU do whatever you want to do. (caps aren’t yelling; just emphasis) That is licence. If there is no such thing as objective good, then there is no such thing as authentic freedom. It becomes a free for all where might makes right is the law of the land.
Amen Bobby…3:45
You can have “objective good” without religion.
Freedom means YOU decide what to do. You might be right (good for you) or you might be wrong (suffer the consequences) but you are free. It’s personal responibility, and it’s as American as apple pie.
“Live Free or Die”
Hal: Freedom means YOU decide what to do. You might be right (good for you) or you might be wrong (suffer the consequences) but you are free. It’s personal responibility, and it’s as American as apple pie.
Maybe that works when you’re two.
If you are hurting someone else, it’s a bad choice. Did you ever read the book “All I Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten”?
It’s a humorous look at “right” and “wrong”.
“Live Free or Die”
Hey, that’s our New Hampshire motto!
But Doug, that’s exactly what I said freedom isn’t (not being subject to others).
Bobby, then we just disagree. I’d say it’s obvious that not being subject to others is indeed freedom. It’s true whether one thinks it’s a good system to be under or not.
……
YOU deem for yourself what is good and what is not good. YOU do whatever you want to do. (caps aren’t yelling; just emphasis) That is licence.
Well, it’s not as simple as that. Those that want to live in society willingly give up amounts of freedom because they’ve already deemed that being in the society is a greater good than the individual doing unlimited deeming, as you portray.
Bottom line for a society is that it’s a group of people with things in common. Enough commonality and it’s in the rules, i.e. “we want things this way…”
……
If there is no such thing as objective good, then there is no such thing as authentic freedom.
We have “authentic freedom” in some areas already, because society isn’t seeing the need to restrict the individual, there. We also have that freedom to alter the rules of society, or to try to do so, anyway. One’s opinion about what morality is need not even come into it.
…..
It becomes a free for all where might makes right is the law of the land.
No, it really doesn’t, because there’s that commonality of desire among people on so many issues. If the land has a “law” it’s because there was sufficient opinion for it, again without regard to what we think “morality” is.
“Might” (of whatever type, provided it’s sufficient) does have effects, i.e. results in the rules, but that’s not saying an given individual will think they are good or bad, etc. There’s always going to be some who think it’s not “right,” but “wrong” – you’re just gonna have that.
There was an article on Alternet that deals with this same topic.
It’s about laws being made to restrict sexuality, but it has some great points about our legal system and how it works.
Americans frightened about sex and angry about “activist courts” need a civics lesson: what exactly is the role of our courts, and why do they sometimes challenge or negate the obvious will of the majority?
The answer is a 2,000-year-old concept called the Separation of Powers. A centerpiece of American government, we didn’t invent it — the Romans had it in their constitution. This revolutionary idea gives an independent judiciary responsibility for reviewing laws made by an executive or legislative branch. Under this system, courts are mandated to judge whether individual laws break the ultimate law — the Constitutional rules of the legal system itself.
Not everyone thinks this is a good idea. Some opponents reject the idea that the majority’s will can be wrong. Other opponents dislike the idea that a minority (say, a religious or ethnic group) has institutionalized rights distinct from those granted it by the majority.
Proponents of the system believe that the Separation of Powers protects democracy and prevents tyranny.
So hey America, democracy does not mean the majority can create any laws they want. It means they can pass any laws they want within our Constitution’s wonderful, far-sighted limits. Democracy is not three wolves and a lamb voting on who gets eaten for dinner.
Legal analyst Mark Kernes notes that our Constitution doesn’t deal with morality — it only deals with rights and privileges. “And morality often conflicts with rights and privileges,” he notes. Morality says ‘you may currently have the right to do X, but you shouldn’t do X.’ But in relying on morality for governance, however, some people then make the leap that if you shouldn’t do X, you shouldn’t have the right to do X. Contemporary examples include virtually anything relating to sexual expression: abortion, pornography, “sex words” on TV, swingers’ clubs, productions of The Vagina Monologues.
“In the interest of calling a spade a spade, at least for our purposes on this site, Pfleger supports Obama, Obama supports abortion. I’m not sure where the media gets off on criticizing an organization for disciplining one of its workers.
Pfleger is now a national character and a vocal supporter of a pro-abortion presidential candidate. The Catholic Church has a (LITERALLY) God-given right to get their name as far removed as possible from a “grave moral evil.”
The Church is anti-war, anti-death penalty, pro-environment, pro-civil rights, anti-abortion, and pro-family. No candidate is perfect, as we all know from our pro-life opinions of McCain. But I, as a good-conscience Catholic, cannot vote for a candidate that supports abortion. And I am awfully proud to be part of a Church that is not divided on this eternally important issue. Pfleger’s supporters are sorely mistaken if they think that this 2000-year-old institution will bow to the will of a charismatic pro-abort and his over-eccentric cheerleaders.
Posted by: Alex at June 5, 2008 3:13 PM”
Alex, great post. I agree wholeheartedly. Andy
I’m back. Answers to all your questions are posted on the Sibelius/Tiller/Party thread below.
Doug, What you refer to as things in common might be “the common good”. Maybe you are already familiar with the term. Here’s just a quick link I found.
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/commongood.html
Janet, oh yeah, that figures in, too. I really meant that on many issues there is so much commonality of opinion that there isn’t even much argument about it, i.e. it would be acknowledged as the “common good” pretty much all the way.
It was mentioned above that “lots of pro-life people” are going to support Obama. What is the source?
So they don’t like someone who gets political, yet they hold “right to life” rallies and think nothing of it. Where were they when we were torturing people in abu ghraib? Where were they when we turned Guantanimo into Shawshank?
righties can be cafeteria catholics too. Jill is case in point.
Alex – you might want to leave your little conservative bubble. The church (its members) are divided on the issue of abortion, the war and other things.
If it were not the case, then the death penalty would be seen as a grave sin, along with abortion, and being a member of the military would also be seen as a grave sin. but since this common sense across the board pro-life stance is not in place, it renders even the pope a cafeteria catholic with regard to the respect for God’s creation.
You know an organization is messed up when even the highest levels of leaders cannot be consistant on what is suppost to be a fundimental teaching of the church.
Alex – you might want to leave your little conservative bubble. The church (its members) are divided on the issue of abortion, the war and other things.
If it were not the case, then the death penalty would be seen as a grave sin, along with abortion, and being a member of the military would also be seen as a grave sin. but since this common sense across the board pro-life stance is not in place, it renders even the pope a cafeteria catholic with regard to the respect for God’s creation.
You know an organization is messed up when even the highest levels of leaders cannot be consistent on what is supposed to be a fundamental teaching of the church.
Anon,
Abortion is grave matter. Catholics have always had a just war doctrine, and you should read Evangelium Vitae for a good understanding of the death penalty, not to mention the CCC. God love you.
I heard one of the parishioners say, “We’lll stop at nothing…” to have Phleger reinstated. What, exactly, does that mean? They congregation will do anything? Even violence? Was that a veiled threat against Cardinal George? We all know their “esteemed” pastor has no problem making veiled threats against people he doesn’t like (threatening to “snuff out” gun shop owners, etc).
Perhaps this might be a lesson in humility for Phleger. Perhaps he might realize that his ego is just a bit too big for his Roman collar. Perhaps he might realize that there is Someone more powerful and more important than he is. Perhaps he will remove himself from the pedestal he has created for himself, and realize that he is not a god to be worshipped.
Perhaps his parishioners would do well to learn a little bit of humility, as well. Perhaps they should take a look at exactly who they are worshipping. I heard a few of the Phleger Phans say that he is the reason that they are Catholic, and that, if he’s gone, they’re gone, as well. To them I say, “You are NOT Catholic. If you were Catholic – heck, if you were CHRISTIAN, you would NOT worship a mortal man, claiming that he is the reason you are Catholic. If you were TRULY Catholic, it would be Jesus Christ ONLY who is the reason you are, and NOTHING could shake your faith and make you turn from Him.
It seems to me that those who are truly Catholic will remain faithful to the church, no matter what happens. And those who are not Catholic – those who are not CHRISTIAN – will continue to worship Phleger.
Anon:10:53: I heard one of the parishioners say, “We’lll stop at nothing…” to have Phleger reinstated. What, exactly, does that mean? They congregation will do anything? Even violence? Was that a veiled threat against Cardinal George? We all know their “esteemed” pastor has no problem making veiled threats against people he doesn’t like (threatening to “snuff out” gun shop owners, etc).
Were you there? That’s being a bit melodramatic, wouldn’t you say?
Perhaps his parishioners would do well to learn a little bit of humility, as well. Perhaps they should take a look at exactly who they are worshipping. I heard a few of the Phleger Phans say that he is the reason that they are Catholic, and that, if he’s gone, they’re gone, as well. To them I say, “You are NOT Catholic. If you were Catholic – heck, if you were CHRISTIAN, you would NOT worship a mortal man, claiming that he is the reason you are Catholic. If you were TRULY Catholic, it would be Jesus Christ ONLY who is the reason you are, and NOTHING could shake your faith and make you turn from Him.
It seems to me that those who are truly Catholic will remain faithful to the church, no matter what happens. And those who are not Catholic – those who are not CHRISTIAN – will continue to worship Phleger.
They love their pastor, they don’t worship him, that’s quite an accusation to make. If they do leave because he leaves, it’s their loss. His parishioners need our prayers, not our condemnation.
Doyle, I think Obam would actually love Pleger on the Obamanation campaign team but he’s afraid he might lose too many of the Hillary supporters.
If the land has a “law” it’s because there was sufficient opinion for it, again without regard to what we think “morality” is.
Posted by: Doug at June 5, 2008 4:40 PM
Doug, Ive been around your circular logic long enough now to see right through it.
1)The only reason commonality of law can even exist in a society is because “might” is used to control the individual.
2) And right or wrong is NOT subjective. Your perception of the act may change, but your perception does NOT have the ability to make the act itself right or wrong. For example, delivering a baby and then puncturing a hole in it’s skull and sucking its brains out is NEVER right. Neither your perception or the law of the land can makle doing that right. Do you really not get that?
Doug, Ive been around your circular logic long enough now to see right through it.
No, Truthseeker, I am looking at what really happens, how things really operate in societies. This is not to say that you or I disagree or agree with a given thing – that comes later.
……
1)The only reason commonality of law can even exist in a society is because “might” is used to control the individual.
So what? Of course laws may take some power behind them for enforcement. This is not what we’ve been talking about, though.
It is the commonality of opinion among people that accounts for so many societies having similar laws (in the first place), with respect to many things most people want the same rules, by and large.
……
2) And right or wrong is NOT subjective. Your perception of the act may change, but your perception does NOT have the ability to make the act itself right or wrong. For example, delivering a baby and then puncturing a hole in it’s skull and sucking its brains out is NEVER right. Neither your perception or the law of the land can makle doing that right. Do you really not get that?
The point is that “right” and “wrong” in the moral realm are perceptions in the beginning, not anything external nor absolute nor with existence outside the mind, outside perception. If there wasn’t “somebody” with desires there, in the first place, to want some things and not want others, there would be no such thing as morality. It’s subjective by definition. It’s ideas. Internal to the mind, not external to it.
Doug, consider the following scenario. Suppose that there is a culture of extra terrestrial beings living on a planet far away. In this culture for whatever reason, rape is socially and morally acceptable. Rape happens all the time there and no one has a problem with it. Now suppose these aliens visit our planet and it turns out that they are close to us physically in the sense that they can engage in intercourse with us. In our culture, we’ve deemed that rape is socially unacceptable. They on the other hand have deemed rape acceptable. They then tell us that they wish to live among us and rape our women because it is socially acceptable to them. What do we have to keep them from raping? What can we appeal to to try and convince them that they shouldn’t rape our woman? Since it is just a social convention and there really isn’t anything wrong with it, we have no basis for telling them they can’t rape our woman. Because rape is acceptable to them, they have just as much right to rape as we do to protest against rape. And then it becomes a matter of might makes right. They believe rape is good. We believe rape isn’t good. Whomever has the most power will win out because there is not true “right,” it’s just an opinion, akin to a preference of chocolate or vanilla ice cream.
So if they come to our planet and rape our woman, my contention it isn’t really wrong of them if moral relativism is true. It just is, and we would have to accept that.
The point is that “right” and “wrong” in the moral realm are perceptions in the beginning, not anything external nor absolute nor with existence outside the mind, outside perception. If there wasn’t “somebody” with desires there, in the first place, to want some things and not want others, there would be no such thing as morality. It’s subjective by definition. It’s ideas. Internal to the mind, not external to it.
Posted by: Doug at June 6, 2008 9:37 AM
Doug, I’ve been here nine months. I mean no disrespect, but since no one else agrees with your viewpoint, do you think there’s a chance you are wrong? Does it not matter to you if you are wrong?
Janet, plenty of people realize that morality is subjective, including several who have posted right here.
It’s really not a “viewpoint,” it’s seeing how things really operate, versus wishful thinking.
Suppose that there is a culture of extra terrestrial beings living on a planet far away. In this culture for whatever reason, rape is socially and morally acceptable. Rape happens all the time there and no one has a problem with it. Now suppose these aliens visit our planet and it turns out that they are close to us physically in the sense that they can engage in intercourse with us. In our culture, we’ve deemed that rape is socially unacceptable. They on the other hand have deemed rape acceptable. They then tell us that they wish to live among us and rape our women because it is socially acceptable to them. What do we have to keep them from raping? What can we appeal to to try and convince them that they shouldn’t rape our woman? Since it is just a social convention and there really isn’t anything wrong with it, we have no basis for telling them they can’t rape our woman.
Bobby, it’s not “just a social convention.” It’s something upon which there really isn’t significant disagreement among our populace. There are already people who rape, and we’d treat the aliens like them – legal punishment (right up to possible intergalactic war, eh, perhaps?). We have plenty of basis for telling them they can’t – our desires that they don’t. An extreme example you’ve come up with, and in real life such people are willingly putting themselves outside society, and thus we imprison or execute them. Again – bottom line – society is people with desires in common, and when one goes that far outside or beyond what “the people” want then one is saying they really don’t want to be in society that much, at the least.
……
Because rape is acceptable to them, they have just as much right to rape as we do to protest against rape.
No, we don’t say that. Who says that about rape, really?
……
And then it becomes a matter of might makes right.
In your example it was going that way anyway. There was gonna be a fight, I figure.
……
They believe rape is good. We believe rape isn’t good. Whomever has the most power will win out because there is not true “right,” it’s just an opinion, akin to a preference of chocolate or vanilla ice cream.
Notions of “true” right or not, if it’s aliens versus us, then yeah, whoever has the most power will win.
……
So if they come to our planet and rape our woman, my contention it isn’t really wrong of them if moral relativism is true. It just is, and we would have to accept that.
It “isn’t really wrong” in whose opinion? It’s always in “somebody’s” opinion – that’s what morality is.
Female genital mutilation. Some societies, for religious or cultural reasons, think it’s right. I don’t, you don’t, Americans in general don’t. Who is “right” there?
In some South American countries, women are taught by the church that it’s wrong to enjoy sex and take pleasure from having sex. Is that “right”?
“In some South American countries, women are taught by the church that it’s wrong to enjoy sex and take pleasure from having sex. Is that “right”? ”
That’s news to me. Pray, which country is that and what’s the context of that?
Janet said 12:23: Doug, I’ve been here nine months. I mean no disrespect, but since no one else agrees with your viewpoint, do you think there’s a chance you are wrong? Does it not matter to you if you are wrong?
Doug said 12:47: Janet, plenty of people realize that morality is subjective, including several who have posted right here.
Not to the extent that you do. Who doesn’t believe morality is objective. Names?
It’s really not a “viewpoint,” it’s seeing how things really operate, versus wishful thinking.
By viewpoint, I mean your perception of reality. So you think you are the realist of the bunch and the rest of us are dreamers? That’s basically what you are saying.
In some South American countries, women are taught by the church that it’s wrong to enjoy sex and take pleasure from having sex. Is that “right”?
Posted by: Doug at June 6, 2008 1:06 PM
Maybe there are still vestiges of that thinking from long ago, but that is not the Church’s stance on that today. It’s quite the opposite. The Catechism covers it extensively.
Janet.
Your trying to reason with a dogmatist, whom I nick named, Dogma Doug. His reality is to deny his dogmatic thinking and declare all that oppose his dogmatic belief in killing human beings are just a Nope, or No, reply in his mind.
Remember, this is the mind that declared there is “no good argument against abortion, they just think they do”.
No greater dogmatic statement has been written here at this post board then that statement written by Dogma Doug.
Ask this dogmatic preacher if murder is a subjective morality and you might realize his mind has been engrossed in making murder into a personal right action, of human beings. Which is exactly what all murders of human beings do. What they murder is a good(or right decision to avoid a meaningless discussion on good and bad) decision, based upon the examination of their conscience, or decision making faculty.
Dogma Doug, has decided that the killing of innocent human beings is the better part of himself. Preaching for the killing of human beings is the “better part Doug’s conscience”, and to deny one’s conscience is the best of oneself, is to deny yourself of being a rightous person. And when a person,Dogma Doug, has preached for 12 years in the public arena for abortion, one is going to dig a deeper hole of being “right” in the decision to kill human life until a dogmatism takes over the mind.
As for me, I admit a dogmatic mind which has decided that I be for a livin’, while Dogma Doug denies his dogmatic mind is for a killin’ of innocent human beings. He turns human beings into parts and pieces until the killing is a healing experience of a human being.
:: laughing ::
yllas, you came clear from under your bridge for that?
[eyeroll]
“In some South American countries, women are taught by the church that it’s wrong to enjoy sex and take pleasure from having sex. Is that “right”?”
Janet: Maybe there are still vestiges of that thinking from long ago, but that is not the Church’s stance on that today. It’s quite the opposite. The Catechism covers it extensively.
Janet, for people’s sake I hope so.
……
Carder: That’s news to me. Pray, which country is that and what’s the context of that?
Carder, the last I heard of it was in a TV discussion of this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Land-God-Man-Latins-Journey/dp/0452280303
……
“Female genital mutilation. Some societies, for religious or cultural reasons, think it’s right. I don’t, you don’t, Americans in general don’t. Who is “right” there?”
— I’d say that remains a good question.
“Janet, plenty of people realize that morality is subjective, including several who have posted right here.”
Not to the extent that you do. Who doesn’t believe morality is objective. Names?
Maybe we should have a poll.
…..
It’s really not a “viewpoint,” it’s seeing how things really operate, versus wishful thinking.
By viewpoint, I mean your perception of reality. So you think you are the realist of the bunch and the rest of us are dreamers? That’s basically what you are saying.
To some extent, but it’s not (all) the rest of you since there are the Hal’s, Edyt’s, Rae’s, PIP’s, Laura’s, Amanda’s, Iva’s, Ray’s etc. There are more and sorry, the rest of you – but you know who you are.
Janet, I’m saying we are all individuals having our say, and that we all have desires, regardless of what we ascribe them to. I think I’m staying with stuff here that is true for all of us.
On morality, don’t you think it is ideas and ideals? Don’t you think there would have to be “somebody” in the first place – a consciousness with cares/vaulations/desires, etc., before there would be any such thing as morality?
Good to see you agree with my opinion that the better part of your conscience is for killing of innocent human beings, Dogma Doug. Quite amazing how a person becomes a “killing preacher” and thinks they aren’t preaching for killin’.
Speaking of coming out Doug, when will you come out and simply admit your dogmatism for killin innocent human beings is based on “no one having a good argument against killin innocent human beings”? Hey, that’s exactly the same mind condition of those doktors who healed by killin circa the 1930’s to 40’s.
I believe there are two types of people in this world. Realists and idealists. I believe Father Pfleger is the latter. No matter what happens when this controversy is over, I think he will find a place within the Catholic Church where he can continue to do the work he desires to do.
Posted by: Janet at June 5, 2008 12:25 PM
You can’t be serious. Read the Catechism. There is NO place for a pro-abort priest in the Catholic Church Janet.
ts: I understand you point. He has a place if he repents. Lets pray that he does.
On morality, don’t you think it is ideas and ideals? Don’t you think there would have to be “somebody” in the first place – a consciousness with cares/vaulations/desires, etc., before there would be any such thing as morality?
Posted by: Doug at June 6, 2008 6:17 PM
You didn’t read the article I suggested to you, did you? Have you ever read an ethics or philosophy book?
Doug,
It is the commonality of opinion among people that accounts for so many societies having similar laws (in the first place), with respect to many things most people want the same rules, by and large.
It is this very commonality that you speak of that lends credence to our assertion that there is an objective moral law. The fact that so many people over so much time constantly come to the same moral conclusions, actually backs up our notion that morality is outside of us.
On morality, don’t you think it is ideas and ideals? Don’t you think there would have to be “somebody” in the first place – a consciousness with cares/vaulations/desires, etc., before there would be any such thing as morality?
Well of course we do. That would be what we call God.
If you speak of evidence for God, I would say that we have much more going for us and the belief that God exists than you have that He doesn’t.
First off, from the beginning of recorded history, man has believed that something “outside” of us exists.
Even your belief that we have a possible nonsentient God (tho I still have no idea what that would accomplish, or what that God would be…) goes waaaaay back to the beginning. There has never been a time in recorded history that man did not believe that there was power outside of us.
You are actually not believing in some new concept, but one of the oldest “religious” concepts that there is. The idea that there is a God, but that He has no part of us.
Secondly, we have written accounts back by historical evidence of God interacting/making Himself known to man. Many of the old testament stories line up with physical evidence.
Thirdly, we have Jesus, witnessed and written about by many, many people who were there, and saw Him personally. They saw the miracles he performed, they saw him die, they saw him come back to life.
Fourthly, we have the miracles that still take place today, like bleeding hosts, weeping statues, stigmata, bilocution, healing…none of which have any explanation, other than Godly intervention.
You, on the other hand, have not one iota of “proof” that God does not exist, or if he does, that he is not sentient.
While our evidence might not be irrefutable, it far outweighs yours.
You say you believe that a non sentient God could/does exist…and yet you cannot produce one shred of evidence to back up your claim.
I asked before, and your answer was rather lame. I’m asking you to think deeper. If God exists, in your way, what is he? What makes Him/it God? Why not just another creature? Why is it GOD? What does the word God mean to you? I realize that you can’t define your idea of God the way we can define ours, but you could at least give me some idea of what you mean by “God”…
What is the purpose of this God? And don’t you see that the idea that there is a God that is not sentient is sort of antithetic to the idea of God, by definition?
Your belief, to me, is more ridiculous than mine. Yours is more like believing in the tooth fairy.
Mine comes from years of God revealing Himself to us. Yours is more like something from Terry Pratchets’ “discworld”!
Janet,
That was an EXCELLENT article. I bookmarked the page.
Good to see you agree with my opinion
Yllas, the point is that beyond your outright lies, taking things out of context, and absurd and obsessive fantasies, there is nothing there in most of your posts.
You can do better, and once in a while you do give evidence that a part of your mind is clinging to some semblance of sanity, however tenuous the grasp….
You feign being confused but you’re really just playing stupid as far as not seeing the difference between somebody being Pro-Choice and somebody who would actually be “pro-abortion.”
A wise person once noted that you are the one “most likely to be preparing a basement to hide the bodies.”
Anyway, tea is said to have some good anti-oxidants in it.
“On morality, don’t you think it is ideas and ideals? Don’t you think there would have to be “somebody” in the first place – a consciousness with cares/vaulations/desires, etc., before there would be any such thing as morality?”
You didn’t read the article I suggested to you, did you? Have you ever read an ethics or philosophy book?
Janet, I sure think I did. How about answering the question?
“It is the commonality of opinion among people that accounts for so many societies having similar laws (in the first place), with respect to many things most people want the same rules, by and large.”
It is this very commonality that you speak of that lends credence to our assertion that there is an objective moral law. The fact that so many people over so much time constantly come to the same moral conclusions, actually backs up our notion that morality is outside of us.
MK, it just means that people tend to be the same in their desires.
……
“On morality, don’t you think it is ideas and ideals? Don’t you think there would have to be “somebody” in the first place – a consciousness with cares/vaulations/desires, etc., before there would be any such thing as morality?”
Well of course we do. That would be what we call God.
Okay, well good – I certainly agree that if there are other “higher” beings than us then they too may well have desires, etc., in the moral realm.
…..
If you speak of evidence for God, I would say that we have much more going for us and the belief that God exists than you have that He doesn’t.
Straw man. Lack of proof for a thing isn’t proof of the negative, and I’ve never stated any such thing, and that’s not the argument.
……
First off, from the beginning of recorded history, man has believed that something “outside” of us exists.
Not “man,” but some people within humanity. There are usually some to whom such beliefs appeal, but it doesn’t apply to everybody. I think that if you’d lived in a different part of the world or different culture, etc., you could well have different beliefs, some of them contradictory to what you now believe, and you’d be just as fervent.
However, I’m not disupting that (often) we seek to explain what we don’t know or understand or that which we fear by making constructs, as with the theological construct of God. The prevalence of this is not proof of anything beyond our imaginings, however.
…..
Even your belief that we have a possible nonsentient God (tho I still have no idea what that would accomplish, or what that God would be…) goes waaaaay back to the beginning. There has never been a time in recorded history that man did not believe that there was power outside of us. You are actually not believing in some new concept, but one of the oldest “religious” concepts that there is. The idea that there is a God, but that He has no part of us.
I didn’t say “that’s my belief,” I just acknowledge that it’s not impossible and was speculating about such. Again, you’re over-generalizing about “man’s belief,” as well.
I’ll answer that question Doug; yes, I do think it is necessary, but I don’t think one has to believe in it to hold that morals are absolute. William Lane Craig presents the moral argument for the existence of God as follows:
1. If God does not exist, then moral absolutes do not exist.
2. Moral absolutes do exist.
Therefore, God exists.
Now that is a logically sound and valid argument. So the only question is if one accepts premises 1 and 2. I think you’re saying Doug, that you accept premise 1 but deny premise 2. Well, I know for sure you deny premise 2. It is interesting to note that atheist/agnostic philosophers seem to be split on which of the two premises they will deny in order to avoid the conclusion. We all know that the first premise is a throwback to Nietzsche , but today atheists like Frank Zindler and Peter Slezek deny premise 1. Other atheists, like my very own Walter Sinnott-Armstrong (here at Dartmouth College, hurray!) denies premise 1, but believes that moral absolutes do exist. So a prominent atheist philosopher like Sinnott-Armstrong would actually disagree with us, Doug. I’m not quite sure what his argument is i.e. if they don’t come from God, where do they come from, but there it is.
I’ve somewhat digressed, but I think the moral argument in conjunction with the existence of God is fairly interesting, much more so than I used to. Ehh, thanks for reading.
Doug, I’d love to continue this covo, but I gotta go. I’ll try and get back to this later.
MK: Secondly, we have written accounts back by historical evidence of God interacting/making Himself known to man. Many of the old testament stories line up with physical evidence.
Well, no, there’s no “historical evidence” of the supernatural stuff and the Bible is not proof of the Bible, etc. The writings were done by people and I realize you believe it’s “the word of God” and/or that the people were divinely inspired, but again, there’s no proof of it.
…..
Thirdly, we have Jesus, witnessed and written about by many, many people who were there, and saw Him personally. They saw the miracles he performed, they saw him die, they saw him come back to life.
A popular myth, I know, but again – no real proof. Many things get attributed to divinities and prophets and agents of Heaven, etc.
……
Fourthly, we have the miracles that still take place today, like bleeding hosts, weeping statues, stigmata, bilocution, healing…none of which have any explanation, other than Godly intervention.
There are plenty of other explanations, but first we’d have to really examine them with scientific rigor to make sure they’re real.
……
You, on the other hand, have not one iota of “proof” that God does not exist, or if he does, that he is not sentient.
I didn’t say I did. That’s not the debate.
……
While our evidence might not be irrefutable, it far outweighs yours.
Again, you’re misstating my position. I’m not claiming anything for which there is not proof in this realm. You are. I realize there are some things that we don’t understand, but among the beliefs you are mentioning that you hold, what can be proven to be actually more than imaginary?
……
You say you believe that a non sentient God could/does exist…and yet you cannot produce one shred of evidence to back up your claim.
Same deal. “A non-sentient God could exist.” What “proof” do you see as necessary there?
……
I asked before, and your answer was rather lame. I’m asking you to think deeper. If God exists, in your way, what is he? What makes Him/it God? Why not just another creature? Why is it GOD? What does the word God mean to you? I realize that you can’t define your idea of God the way we can define ours, but you could at least give me some idea of what you mean by “God”
Then you’re feeling that the truth is “lame.” I don’t know that any gods exist. I don’t state that there are none, but seeing that there is no proof of such and realizing that (of course) there is no proof of the absence of gods isn’t defining them in any certain way. People tend to construct religious things that serve their needs, one way or another, and I don’t need it.
To me “God” means the idea of one, and what individual people believe in the area (many different things there). I feel it would be something more-knowing or more pervasive than us individuals, or at least just “worshipped” as such.
……
What is the purpose of this God? And don’t you see that the idea that there is a God that is not sentient is sort of antithetic to the idea of God, by definition?
If the God would be sentient and willful, then the purpose is up to that God. If not, then it’d be more like a “natural law” as with physics. No, the idea of God in no way has to have sentience, etc., necessarily involved.
……
Your belief, to me, is more ridiculous than mine. Yours is more like believing in the tooth fairy.
Straw man. Your position is evidently weak enough that you feel the need for such.
……
Mine comes from years of God revealing Himself to us. Yours is more like something from Terry Pratchets’ “discworld”!
Nah – you are choosing to believe as you do, and misstating what I have said, that’s all.
If ants were self-aware, you could have an ant colony and they might consider you a god. Who knows – perhaps there is a God who created the world and living creatures (indeed, with free will) and the whole thing was set in motion and “he” is sitting back, just watching what happens.
You could do the same with the ants. Yet who among the ants could really be sure that you’re the whole deal as far as “God”? Likewise, beyond any need on our parts to say that “the one God is it,” what’s to say there aren’t more, and/or “higher” beings even than any gods we conceive of?
Doug,
MK, it just means that people tend to be the same in their desires.
Yes, I know Doug, but it begs the question, why? Why are their desires so similar? And my answer is because they come from someplace outside of themselves. Not proof, no, but it causes one to think.
……
Straw man. Lack of proof for a thing isn’t proof of the negative, and I’ve never stated any such thing, and that’s not the argument. I didn’t say “that’s my belief,” I just acknowledge that it’s not impossible and was speculating about such. Again, you’re over-generalizing about “man’s belief,” as well.Well, no, there’s no “historical evidence” of the supernatural stuff and the Bible is not proof of the Bible, etc. The writings were done by people and I realize you believe it’s “the word of God” and/or that the people were divinely inspired, but again, there’s no proof of it.
…..
All books were written by men. Do you deny ALL written history? Or just that stuff that doesn’t sit well with you? There IS historical evidence for much of the stuff in the bible, and I’m referring to that. Facts to back up much of what is in the bible.
Do you deny the historical accounts of the history of Greece? Rome? They too were written by men. But those are considered history, while the bible is dismissed as fantasy? Why?
……………………………….
Well, no, there’s no “historical evidence” of the supernatural stuff and the Bible is not proof of the Bible, etc. The writings were done by people and I realize you believe it’s “the word of God” and/or that the people were divinely inspired, but again, there’s no proof of it.
…..
how can that be a straw man? It wasn’t an argument, just my opinion. What you claim to believe is at least, if not more ridiculous to ME.
…………………………..
You could do the same with the ants. Yet who among the ants could really be sure that you’re the whole deal as far as “God”? Likewise, beyond any need on our parts to say that “the one God is it,” what’s to say there aren’t more, and/or “higher” beings even than any gods we conceive of?
But that is my WHOLE point. Of course you could do the same with ants. But there would be no evidence to back it up. Again, this doesn’t prove it ain’t so, but I have evidence to back up my theory, so to ME, mine makes more sense. It wasn’t just pulled out of thin air, but based on actual events that are recorded in history…
http://www.carm.org/bible/extrabiblical_accounts.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/8449/two.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
Obviously, there are thousands of sites that show historical evidence, but I tried to pick ones that weren’t biased towards Christianity…
Just the fact that the old testament has many, many prophecies that later came to pass, is evidence (note I never say proof) that there is more there than meets the eye…
Bobby, plenty of time for everything. (And you oughtta post that picture of you in the doorway with the “She’s a BESBUS” paper.)
I’ll answer that question Doug; yes, I do think it is necessary, but I don’t think one has to believe in it to hold that morals are absolute.
I think that’s self-contradictory. First, seeing what morality is is not making any pronouncement about the existence of God or “absolute” (for us) or external morality.
If we go with the premise of one “supreme being” then I’d agree that that being’s morals would be external to us, and “absolute” compared to us, but there is still a “somebody” there in that case, so one still believes that there has to at least be “somebody,” i.e. one can’t logically say they believe in absolute morality and God, etc., but think that there doesn’t have to be that “somebody…”
Maybe I’m going overboard, doing it so step-by-step, but seems to me that it boils down to saying that morality is ideas, and that they have to come from somewhere.
……
William Lane Craig presents the moral argument for the existence of God as follows:
1. If God does not exist, then moral absolutes do not exist.
That presupposes that “God” would be the only entity whose morality could be “absolute” compared to us. I see below that you mention accepting the premises, but I’m saying it’s not a logical statement in the first place. I don’t think it’s a huge deal, though…. Okay, let’s start over.
……
1. If God does not exist, then moral absolutes do not exist.
2. Moral absolutes do exist.
Therefore, God exists.
Now that is a logically sound and valid argument. So the only question is if one accepts premises 1 and 2. I think you’re saying Doug, that you accept premise 1 but deny premise 2. Well, I know for sure you deny premise 2. It is interesting to note that atheist/agnostic philosophers seem to be split on which of the two premises they will deny in order to avoid the conclusion. We all know that the first premise is a throwback to Nietzsche , but today atheists like Frank Zindler and Peter Slezek deny premise 1. Other atheists, like my very own Walter Sinnott-Armstrong (here at Dartmouth College, hurray!) denies premise 1, but believes that moral absolutes do exist. So a prominent atheist philosopher like Sinnott-Armstrong would actually disagree with us, Doug. I’m not quite sure what his argument is i.e. if they don’t come from God, where do they come from, but there it is.
I’ve somewhat digressed, but I think the moral argument in conjunction with the existence of God is fairly interesting, much more so than I used to. Ehh, thanks for reading.
Ha – you’re welcome, and if anything I’m in your debt.
Okay, for the sake of the discussion let’s go with “God” being the only possible source of moral absolutes.
But where is the proof that “moral absolutes exist”? I do agree that if we say that “Only with God can there be absolutes,” then the presence of them would prove God.
You’re right – I do deny # 2. It’s the same as with Thomas Aquinas’ “proofs of God.” They are really just statements of belief – might as well just state “God exists” in the first place.
As far as denying # 1, I think we first need to define what we mean by “morality,” i.e. in my case ‘ideas’. One could say that “absolute morality” are those which are necessary for the most people being happy or the smoothest societal function, etc., no God required. I will gladly go with the spirit (yuck yuck yuck) of #1, though, yet I wonder how those who deny # 1 define it, and Sinnot-Armstrong too.
Finally Dogma Doug has actually analyzed himself through trying to understand my writing. You have just written a complete post which actually describes your own writing, mind, and character.
“”You feign being confused but you’re really playing stupid…..”. This occurs when you deny your a dogmatist for the killing of innocent human beings.
Afterall, Dogma Doug, your playing stupid, that your written statement; “that NO ONE (a absolute) has a good argument against abortion”, is not a dogmatic vision/decision of ALL people who oppose the killing of innocent human beings, is based upon a absolutist statement of your mind.
Do you see it yet Dogma Doug? Your trying to confuse yourself into not being a absolutist for abortion. “NO ONE has a argument against abortion.” Yet you wander about, playing the fool of NOT being a absolutist while trying to deny that absolute morality exist. It exist in YOU Dogma Doug. See it yet Dogma Doug?
I use you as a example Dogma Doug to expose the confusion in your writing philosophically/logically for others to see. To understand that debating a absolutist(you Dogma Doug) for the killing of innocent human beings is to write to a mind, closed off and sealed to rational argument in the matter of killin’ human beings.
To be truthful Dogma Doug, your unable to understand, and feign confusion to escape your own dogmatic writing at this board.
Yes, I write about your mind decisions ,character, personality,and failed ability to examine yourself in dysphemisms, to try and crack that dogmatic mind open to the simple idea of your being a contradiction in terms of truth. By being a person unable to understand a simple truth, that your a absolutist, feigning and playing stupid, to your own words that you wrote.
Or, as a wise man once wrote, Physician, heal thyself……… first. Get it yet Dogma Doug?
MK: it begs the question, why? Why are their desires so similar? And my answer is because they come from someplace outside of themselves. Not proof, no, but it causes one to think.
Well, that’s pretty reasonable, MK. I’d say they are similar because people are so similar, the world over.
……
“Straw man. Lack of proof for a thing isn’t proof of the negative, and I’ve never stated any such thing, and that’s not the argument.”
I didn’t say it “proved” He doesn’t exist. I just pointed out that we have evidence and you have none.
Oy Vey, you are acting like I stated “there is no God” and that’s not true. It’s not my position in the first place and nobody has any more proof of there “being no God” than you have for God from the get-go.
…..
If someone showed me an apple and then showed me the dictionary/botany definition of apple, then pointed out that the apple fit the definition, while someone else said I have no evidence that that isn’t an apple, but I don’t believe it is, who am I most likely to go with?
Matters of physical reality are one thing, unprovable beliefs are another.
Show an apple to somebody 10,000 years ago, and they’re probably gonna believe it. Some people came up with stuff like “a god did it” to explain lightning, thunder, etc., and some others believed it too.
Same in the present time. Physical reality = not much argument. People with the emotional need for religious constructs = lots of arguments from others.
you said, “no, you do believe in God, you just don’t believe he is sentient”.
I didn’t say that, MK.
……
How am I over generalizing? I have said that from the beginning man has sought to explain the unknown and that that explanation comes in the form of “God/gods”…Your version of God has been around forever. The singularity, the Sun, Nature, Pantheism…Mine is relatively new.
There has never been a time in recorded history that man did not believe that there was power outside of us is a generalization = “man” rather than “some people” or “many people,” etc. Not everybody believes the same stuff now, and it was true way back when as well. I think you want to see things in a monolithic way.
The “seeking to explain” part – many feel the need for it, now as then.
……
“Well, no, there’s no “historical evidence” of the supernatural stuff and the Bible is not proof of the Bible, etc. The writings were done by people and I realize you believe it’s “the word of God” and/or that the people were divinely inspired, but again, there’s no proof of it.
All books were written by men. Do you deny ALL written history? Or just that stuff that doesn’t sit well with you? There IS historical evidence for much of the stuff in the bible, and I’m referring to that. Facts to back up much of what is in the bible.
Yet not the supernatural stuff, which is what I said. The logical point that the Bible isn’t a suitable source as “proof for the Bible” remains.
……
how can that be a straw man? It wasn’t an argument, just my opinion. What you claim to believe is at least, if not more ridiculous to ME.
It’s a straw man because you are incorrectly stating what I believe, then arguing against your construction, rather than what I have said.
……
“You could do the same with the ants. Yet who among the ants could really be sure that you’re the whole deal as far as “God”? Likewise, beyond any need on our parts to say that “the one God is it,” what’s to say there aren’t more, and/or “higher” beings even than any gods we conceive of?”
But that is my WHOLE point. Of course you could do the same with ants. But there would be no evidence to back it up. Again, this doesn’t prove it ain’t so, but I have evidence to back up my theory, so to ME, mine makes more sense. It wasn’t just pulled out of thin air, but based on actual events that are recorded in history…
The ants could point to you, and say, “There she is,” and that’d be physical reality, but it wouldn’t be proof of you as a supreme being. Nor wold their belief in you mean that you’re “the top” as far as being supreme, the “one God,” etc. Likewise, while Jesus may have existed as a person on earth, that is not proof of divinity, etc.
Yllas, you’re just in your incoherent troll mode. Wow, you can copy from other people, too.
Doug,
you said, “no, you do believe in God, you just don’t believe he is sentient”.
*
I didn’t say that, MK.
……
MK, I don’t think there is a sentience, a conscious will, as far as a God, but that is not stating there is no such thing.
Posted by: Doug at June 6, 2008 12:42 PM
I’ve asked you to explain further, but you haven’t so I am left with my understanding of what you have written.
To me, this looks like you are saying that you accept the possibility of a God, but that you don’t believe he is sentient.
Show me where I’ve gotten it wrong.
As for the supernatural stuff…I pointed out to you that there is supernatural stuff today, as we speak, that cannot be explained. That is irrefutable evidence that supernatural stuff exists. If it exists now, there is no reason to doubt that it has always existed. And I have not used the word proof, have actually gone out of my way to use “evidence”.
So lets back up. What do you believe as far as God is concerned. Not what could you believe, but what DO you believe. Perhaps if you were clearer, I wouldn’t make false assumptions.
Even if you say that you believe in the possibility of a God, my question remains the same.
If I can show historical evidence that Jesus existed, and then show writers outside of the bible that reference his miracles, how is my belief ludicrous compared to yours? Whether you believe that nothing exists, something nonsentient exists or gnomes rule the universe?
And the main question I am asking and have been asking is, “What does the word “GOD” mean to you?
Before we can even discuss what this God is like, we must first have a definition of God to work with. Obviously, you know mine. But you have yet to give me yours.
Well Dogma Doug,
Is the above post about me absolutely true? Or just some truth which I might ask in terms of a mathematical percentage?
We might be on the road to discovering a second absolutist decision of Dogma Doug, besides the killing of innocent human beings.
NOTICE:
I realize that on other blogs posting as anonymous is allowed, even encouraged. But here on Jill’s we are all about conversation. Something that is very difficult when 5 or 6 people are posting under the same moniker.
Jill and I have discussed this, and we have decided that from now on anyone posted as anonymous will be removed. Or a moniker will be attached for you.
We aren’t trying to be mean, or unfair, but quite the contrary, are trying to make this easier for everyone.
You do not need to put your email in to post. So call yourself Buford, Amos, Clyde or Florence and we still won’t know who you are in the real world. But we WILL know who we are speaking with here on Jill’s site.
Sorry if this upsets anyone. Really. But we feel it’s necessary.
Thanks for understanding…
MK
(with Jill’s approval)
Doug,
“I think that’s self-contradictory. First, seeing what morality is is not making any pronouncement about the existence of God or “absolute” (for us) or external morality.”
There is a sense in which my statement that you are referring to is self-contradictory, I agree. I guess what I was trying to say is that it can rationally be argued that absolute morals do exist without appealing to God, but one who does this (like Sinnott-Armstrong) in reality is appealing to God without knowing it, if that makes any sense.
“If we go with the premise of one “supreme being” then I’d agree that that being’s morals would be external to us, and “absolute” compared to us, but there is still a “somebody” there in that case, so one still believes that there has to at least be “somebody,” i.e. one can’t logically say they believe in absolute morality and God, etc., but think that there doesn’t have to be that “somebody…””
Right. Like I said, I agree, but I think people can make arguments to say that absolute morals exist without God, but they appeal to God, just not in those words.
“Maybe I’m going overboard, doing it so step-by-step, but seems to me that it boils down to saying that morality is ideas, and that they have to come from somewhere.”
It’s good to go step by step. Let me ask you this, Doug. Where would you say mathematics comes from?
“Ha – you’re welcome, and if anything I’m in your debt.”
Ha!
“Okay, for the sake of the discussion let’s go with “God” being the only possible source of moral absolutes.
But where is the proof that “moral absolutes exist”? I do agree that if we say that “Only with God can there be absolutes,” then the presence of them would prove God.”
I think the evidence usually consists in not being willing to accept the negation there being moral absolutes. If there are no moral absolutes then, for example, we can say nothing about the Holocaust being right or wrong. Sure it was bad for a lot of people, but it wasn’t evil in an absolute sense. To be a bit more precise, I mean that there is a world or one could create or come up with or imagine a world in which the Holocaust is considered good. This can be replaced with any number of things; rape, pedophilia, torturing a small child for fun. If it is not absolutely true that these things are always and everywhere and in every world and every case wrong, then there is some world in which say a father ritualistically sodomizing his 4 year old while the mother slices up her child’s back with a razor blade is acceptable. I think most people can’t accept this.
You actually impressed/ frightened (hehe) me Doug one of the first times I interacted with you.. I made an argument similar along these lines about saying that if you accept something you said, then you would have to say that the Holocaust was neither good nor bad. And you more or less said you had no problem with that. You were and always have been very consistent.
My point is that above is some of the reasoning that people accept, but I don’t think you’re convinced by it.
“You’re right – I do deny # 2. It’s the same as with Thomas Aquinas’ “proofs of God.” They are really just statements of belief – might as well just state “God exists” in the first place.”
Well, I’m not sure what sort of epistemic views you hold, but I think most people would agree that foundationalsim is fairly rational i.e. we have certain basic beliefs that are self-evident and need no justification (like 2+2=4). Obviously what is basic to some may need to be justified by others. But for example, the argument from causality
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.
2. The universe began.
Therefore, the universe had a cause.
This doesn’t have any premises that seem to beg the question, I think. The view of 1) I would hold as foundational i.e. it seems self-evident that everything that begins to exist has a cause for it’s existence. It seems that premise 1) is weakly justified i.e. it is prima facie true. Premise 2) now has a lot of scientific backing, with big bang cosmology and all, so most people actually deny premise 1, which is odd because all of science is based of causes.
So we all do have some foundational statements of belief. The question is “are these foundational statements that we hold more plausible, less plausible, or as plausible as their negation?” That seems to be the standard in epistemology; that a belief is considered rational or justifiable if that belief is more plausible than its negation.
I guess I said a lot of tangential stuff there- don’t feel the need to address it all. Sometimes I just like typing for the sake of watching myself type :)
“As far as denying # 1, I think we first need to define what we mean by “morality,” i.e. in my case ‘ideas’. One could say that “absolute morality” are those which are necessary for the most people being happy or the smoothest societal function, etc., no God required. I will gladly go with the spirit (yuck yuck yuck) of #1, though, yet I wonder how those who deny # 1 define it, and Sinnot-Armstrong too.”
OK. So I alluded to it above, but I would say that an action is moral if it is good in all possible worlds. So is there a world where rape is good? Is there a world in which hating your neighbor is upright?
For example, one could imagine a world in which men had babies and woman were on average taller than men. One could imagine a world in which human beings had 3 arms. However, there is no world in which 3+3=8 unless you mean something different by those symbols. There is no world in which a bachelor is married. These are logically absurd.
Now according to your definition about society, I can see why morals would be relative to you. I too would like to know more about what someone like Sinnott-Armstrong would say. Dinesh D’Souza actually debated him here a couple months ago on this very question (are morals grounded in God’s nature?) but I missed it. I don’t know why but I did. A loser am I.
Is the above post about me absolutely true?
Yllas, it’s true that very often you outright lie, take things out of context, and simply conjure up silly stuff.
If you’re in a serious mood, then as I’ve said before, I do not think that anybody has a good argument against abortion – to the extent that we would take away the freedom that women currently have in the matter. I also realize that some people think they do have a good argument against abortion (and thus there’s a lot of arguing that goes on about it).
I would also say that your opinion would be that “there is not a good enough argument for abortion that we would allow the unborn to be killed.”
Now, I’m not going to go into paroxysms over you about that, I think it’s just a given. (See, it’s really not that hard.)
This shows that for themselves some people DO have a good enough argument against abortion, and thus they probably should not have an abortion per that. This is not saying that public policy should be made, there, but that one’s own opinion about one’s own body has some necessary weight (IMO if you want) and that as is often the case, society is best served by allowing the individual their freedom, absent compelling need otherwise.
To me, this looks like you are saying that you accept the possibility of a God, but that you don’t believe he is sentient.
Show me where I’ve gotten it wrong.
MK, I do accept the possibility of God, based on the impossibility of proving God’s non-existence, alone. So, I say that maybe there is a God, the nature of which I don’t know.
That’s really it as far as my belief, there. I don’t see proof of God but also can’t rule God out.
……
I pointed out to you that there is supernatural stuff today, as we speak, that cannot be explained. That is irrefutable evidence that supernatural stuff exists. If it exists now, there is no reason to doubt that it has always existed.
I agree, MK, and I do think there is stuff “out there” that we don’t know of/don’t understand. I don’t accept that it’s “God” or supernatural, necessarily, in the “divine” way. It may be a manifestation of powers yet-undreampt of, or of our own minds, etc.
……
If I can show historical evidence that Jesus existed, and then show writers outside of the bible that reference his miracles, how is my belief ludicrous compared to yours? Whether you believe that nothing exists, something nonsentient exists or gnomes rule the universe?
I don’t think that I am believing in anything, here, that you really have a problem with, i.e. though you do believe in God, you understand that others don’t. If I was proclaiming that there is no God, then I’d think you have a case, because nobody can prove that.
I also don’t say that your belief is “ludicrous.” I say that you accept things with are unprovable, that you go farther than I do in making unprovable assumptions.
I’ve seen arguments over the existence of Jesus, and both sides have formidable arrays of stuff, but in the end I accept that there probably was a Jesus. The divinity or not is the rub, as I see it. When we get to Jesus performing miracles, that’s where we’re into myth, IMO, and that other writers mention it doesn’t prove anything either way.
I do think that lemmings will have their day, though. (P.S. Beware of rogue sheep.)
……
And the main question I am asking and have been asking is, “What does the word “GOD” mean to you? Before we can even discuss what this God is like, we must first have a definition of God to work with. Obviously, you know mine. But you have yet to give me yours.
When I hear “God” I think of a sentience, a will, an entity “up above” or “separate” from us in our plane of existence, even somewhat of a “male” deal – much of this comes from the childhood impressions I got from other people.
As before: “To me “God” means the idea of one, and what individual people believe in the area (many different things there). I feel it would be something more-knowing or more pervasive than us individuals, or at least just “worshipped” as such.”
If anything I’d say that God is the ideas in peoples’ minds and in the minds of other species if they have any such conceptions. Being agnostic, I’d say it pretty much has to be that way (or else one wouldn’t then be agnostic).
what I was trying to say is that it can rationally be argued that absolute morals do exist without appealing to God, but one who does this (like Sinnott-Armstrong) in reality is appealing to God without knowing it, if that makes any sense.
Okay, Bobby, yeah – gotcha.
……
It’s good to go step by step. Let me ask you this, Doug. Where would you say mathematics comes from?
From the really cool people heh heh.
I think it comes from our self-consciousness as a race, our desire to do the operations, since we want to understand magnitude and the interrelationships of quantities, and we want others to be able to do it too.
Thus, we want to communicate our mathematical thinking, and the symbols of mathematics are are made with an eye toward that, as well as toward keeping our thoughts “straight” when they become so numerous as to crowd our memory.
It comes from human nature.
…..
If there are no moral absolutes then, for example, we can say nothing about the Holocaust being right or wrong. Sure it was bad for a lot of people, but it wasn’t evil in an absolute sense. To be a bit more precise, I mean that there is a world or one could create or come up with or imagine a world in which the Holocaust is considered good. This can be replaced with any number of things; rape, pedophilia, torturing a small child for fun. If it is not absolutely true that these things are always and everywhere and in every world and every case wrong, then there is some world in which say a father ritualistically sodomizing his 4 year old while the mother slices up her child’s back with a razor blade is acceptable. I think most people can’t accept this.
That’s why I brought up female genital mutilation before – it tends toward what you are saying while being a real-world example.
I do feel there is no “evil” or “good” in any absolute sense. But we most certainly can say the Holocaust was wrong, because we feel that way. Again, morality = feelings.
In this world of ours, there are people now, i.e. one tribe against another, who think that a holocaust is good, as long as it’s against the other side, as with in the Sudan. Yet they’re still in the great minority among all the world’s people.
If everybody on earth agreed on one particular thing, it still wouldn’t necessarily be “objective” or “absolute” – it could still be relative to each individual, albeit with universal agreement.
……
You actually impressed/ frightened (hehe) me Doug one of the first times I interacted with you.. I made an argument similar along these lines about saying that if you accept something you said, then you would have to say that the Holocaust was neither good nor bad. And you more or less said you had no problem with that. You were and always have been very consistent.
Thanks – without emotionalism I do think there are some truths here, though they sound “hard” to some people.
I think most people would agree that foundationalism is fairly rational i.e. we have certain basic beliefs that are self-evident and need no justification (like 2+2=4).
No problem, though there is a difference between something like 2 + 2 = 4 and moral valuation. If there are a group of objects and we take a couple, then a couple more, there is a quantity there of physical reality. It doesn’t matter how many people know of it, or what they think of it. Meanwhile, morality is thinking.
Obviously what is basic to some may need to be justified by others. But for example, the argument from causality
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.
2. The universe began.
Therefore, the universe had a cause.
This doesn’t have any premises that seem to beg the question, I think. The view of 1) I would hold as foundational i.e. it seems self-evident that everything that begins to exist has a cause for it’s existence. It seems that premise 1) is weakly justified i.e. it is prima facie true. Premise 2) now has a lot of scientific backing, with big bang cosmology and all, so most people actually deny premise 1, which is odd because all of science is based of causes.
If anything, as with John McDonell’s and my discussions, I’d say that it’s looking back to the Big Bang or the “start of the universe” like it’s only one time dimension, and that’s really not the way the universe is. Additionally, one would then logically ask, “When did God begin?”
…..
So we all do have some foundational statements of belief. The question is “are these foundational statements that we hold more plausible, less plausible, or as plausible as their negation?” That seems to be the standard in epistemology; that a belief is considered rational or justifiable if that belief is more plausible than its negation.
I guess I said a lot of tangential stuff there- don’t feel the need to address it all. Sometimes I just like typing for the sake of watching myself type :)
Well, we all make unprovable assumptions – I think any consciousness does that’s self-aware like we are (or moreso).
I would say that an action is moral if it is good in all possible worlds. So is there a world where rape is good? Is there a world in which hating your neighbor is upright?
I don’t think so, but it’s because “rape” and “hate” are already defined as bad in some ways. Rape is presumed to be against the will of the rapee, and we say “the victim;” and “hating” also implies displeasure and going against what is desired, and I am saying that morality is involved with what the will is, and what is wanted versus unwanted.
…..
For example, one could imagine a world in which men had babies and woman were on average taller than men. One could imagine a world in which human beings had 3 arms. However, there is no world in which 3+3=8 unless you mean something different by those symbols. There is no world in which a bachelor is married. These are logically absurd.
Right – matters of physical reality and logic are one thing. Objective, not subjective. Bobby, how would you define a “society”?
Doug,
I’m going to be a bit pick-and-choose about what I respond to. I’m cleaning the house today with the wife and baby, and I”m only on a small break.
“From the really cool people heh heh.
I think it comes from our self-consciousness as a race, our desire to do the operations, since we want to understand magnitude and the interrelationships of quantities, and we want others to be able to do it too.
Thus, we want to communicate our mathematical thinking, and the symbols of mathematics are are made with an eye toward that, as well as toward keeping our thoughts “straight” when they become so numerous as to crowd our memory.
It comes from human nature.”
OK. Well, the reason I ask is because there is a question about whether mathematics is discovered or invented. It does seem like mathematics is “out there” and that we just need to find it. There is the famous case of Newton and Leibniz discovering (or inventing) the calculus at the same time in history in different parts of the world without knowledge of each other.
“If everybody on earth agreed on one particular thing, it still wouldn’t necessarily be “objective” or “absolute” – it could still be relative to each individual, albeit with universal agreement.”
Exactly, which is why I believe morality is something outside of ourselves; it
s this standard that exists like mathematics. And female genital mutilation is a great example; it is happening in certain parts of the world, but I think it is evil, even though a certain culture accepts it. But that would be a case where you say “it’s right for their culture, so I have no problem with it”? Something like that? My position is that they should not be doing that, and I would like to fight against their “right” (which I don’t really believe is a right) to do that.
“…I’d say that it’s looking back to the Big Bang or the “start of the universe” like it’s only one time dimension, and that’s really not the way the universe is…”
I’m not sure what you mean here. Are you postulating the multiple universe theories? Because the way I understand it (I’m NO physicist), we had time, matter, and space all begin in a single instant of the big bang.
“Additionally, one would then logically ask, “When did God begin?””
This is why, if you look at my argument from causality above, I was careful to state the premise that everything that BEGINS TO EXIST has a cause. God has the property of aseity; that is, his existence is necessary, hence there never was a time when he wasn’t. He is the uncaused cause. Since time, space, and matter began at the big bang, God is outside of time and the inventor of time. To clarify further, when I talk about possible worlds, there is no possible world in which God does not exist because his existence is necessary. Our existence is contingent; that is, not necessary. It is possible I could have never been born and thats fine. But God, by his very nature, who he is, has always existed and can’t not exist.
“I don’t think so, but it’s because “rape” and “hate” are already defined as bad in some ways. Rape is presumed to be against the will of the rapee, and we say “the victim;” and “hating” also implies displeasure and going against what is desired, and I am saying that morality is involved with what the will is, and what is wanted versus unwanted.”
This is interesting. By rape, I mean forcing someone to have sex with you against your will. The one who is raped is still a victim because they had something done to them against their will. It’s just that if rape is not morally reprehensible, then there is a world in which what I just described is considered good. Now if morality is determined by the will, then rape is a moral good to the rapper and bad to the victim. So if I”m a raper, and I say “rape is a moral good” you wouldn’t argue that with me, correct? You’d have a different opinion, but you couldn’t tell me I”m wrong like you would tell me I”m wrong if I said 2+2=7 or pi_1(S^1)=0 (hehe). I think that’s what many people could not do; they could not NOT let a rapper say that rape is a moral good.
“Bobby, how would you define a “society”?”
Hmmm, actually I don’t know! Probably something along the lines of a collection of people living in a certain area who interact with each other in some way, usually for (but not limited to) the good of that collection of people. Something like that.
female genital mutilation is a great example; it is happening in certain parts of the world, but I think it is evil, even though a certain culture accepts it. But that would be a case where you say “it’s right for their culture, so I have no problem with it”? Something like that? My position is that they should not be doing that, and I would like to fight against their “right” (which I don’t really believe is a right) to do that.
Bobby, I do have a problem with it – I see the suffering as much greater than the good that the people who believe in it get from it.
……
Are you postulating the multiple universe theories? Because the way I understand it (I’m NO physicist), we had time, matter, and space all begin in a single instant of the big bang.
I’m not enough of one to explain this that well, but you’re still seeing “a single instant” as if time stands alone. Yes, spacetime would be “compressed” to a singularity, but even “compressed” sounds just three-dimensional to me.
Not “multiple universes” though who knows? It’s hard not to think of things as having our “normal” three spatial dimensions and one of time. Anyway, there could be a “cycling” of spacetime, an “expansion” a la the Big Bang followed later by a contraction, then another expansion, etc., over and over, without beginning or end.
……
if you look at my argument from causality above, I was careful to state the premise that everything that BEGINS TO EXIST has a cause. God has the property of aseity; that is, his existence is necessary, hence there never was a time when he wasn’t. He is the uncaused cause. Since time, space, and matter began at the big bang, God is outside of time and the inventor of time. To clarify further, when I talk about possible worlds, there is no possible world in which God does not exist because his existence is necessary. Our existence is contingent; that is, not necessary. It is possible I could have never been born and thats fine. But God, by his very nature, who he is, has always existed and can’t not exist.
We’re probably at an impasse here. One could as well say that the universe, etc., has always existed, too, i.e. spacetime wouldn’t have to “begin” at a Big Bang.
I think the “necessity” for God exists in the needs of people to believe in such.
…..
The one who is raped is still a victim because they had something done to them against their will. It’s just that if rape is not morally reprehensible, then there is a world in which what I just described is considered good. Now if morality is determined by the will, then rape is a moral good to the rapper and bad to the victim. So if I”m a raper, and I say “rape is a moral good” you wouldn’t argue that with me, correct? You’d have a different opinion, but you couldn’t tell me I”m wrong like you would tell me I”m wrong if I said 2+2=7 or pi_1(S^1)=0 (hehe). I think that’s what many people could not do; they could not NOT let a rapper say that rape is a moral good.
I think “a world where things are done to people against their will and it’s considered good” (to paraphrase and generalize) is a contradiction, because those doing the considering would have stuff done to them against their will, and it does not make sense that it’d be seen as “good.”
I don’t really think that rapists say that rape “is a moral good” to them, and we don’t put the rapist’s view above that of the intended victim. What case can be made that the victim’s view should be trumped by that of the rapist? Wouldn’t the suffering there be greater than that of the rapist if not allowed to rape? I realize that suffering isn’t the end-all of the debate, but I see it the same way as with not having the view of others trump that of the pregnant woman.
Doug,
What case can be made that the victim’s view should be trumped by that of the rapist? Wouldn’t the suffering there be greater than that of the rapist if not allowed to rape? I realize that suffering isn’t the end-all of the debate, but I see it the same way as with not having the view of others trump that of the pregnant woman.
It seems to me that you have just switched from morality comes from desire, to morality is based on avoidance of suffering. These two things contradict themselves.
I do feel there is no “evil” or “good” in any absolute sense. But we most certainly can say the Holocaust was wrong, because we feel that way. Again, morality = feelings.
While your argument fits your theory from the victims point of view (it feels bad to be raped, therefore it is bad), you change when we look through the rapists eyes. He says rape feels good, so it is right, and you say that he is wrong because he is causing suffering. Have I got that right?
If I understand your premise correctly, that morality=feeling, then there is no good or bad. Or they co exist equally. Now you might counter that YOU think rape is wrong because it causes it’s victim to suffer and then we would have three oopinions of whether rape is good.
The rapist says it’s good because it feels good.
The rapee says it’s bad because it feels bad.
And you say it’s bad because someone suffers.
To me, in your eyes, from your point of view, it sounds like you do indeed believe in an absolute moral system…if someone suffers, then it is bad.
Now the question remains, who decides which one of you is right. Bobby and I would say we look to an outside source, God/Moral law, and then we can know for sure. You say we look to society to decide. Which leads to the question “What if society decides that the rapist wins?”…Which will probably lead you to say that you would be unhappy, but that’s the way it is.
But to Bobby and I, this is unacceptable. It leaves so much open to interpretation, that in the end, it is indeed might makes right, if push comes to shove.
What do you think about sacrifice for the common good?
So Dogma Doug,
Since NO ONE has good argument against abortion, which are your words, is that statment by you a absolute truth? To arrive at a answer that quantifies the truth of your words, one must use math. Is the statement that “no one has a argument against abortion” 100 percent true, a absolute truth, or less then 100 percent?
A simple percentage answer will do Dogma Doug.
After getting a percentage answer to your statment of “NO ONE” has a argument against abortion, we can then discuss the contradiction in truth you are offering in not knowing what NO ONE means concerning absolutes and less then absolute.
Next will be a discussion on the definition of dogma which you seem not to be able to understand when it is used discribing a statment you wrote. Or are you playing the fool Dogma Doug?
It might be that you don’t understand that the word NO, combined with ONE, is a absolute statement from lacking education.
There is no shame,guilt, or emotion in being a dogmatic closed minded preacher for the killing of human beings Dogma Doug. It is a fact which you disclosed to this board by writing a absolute truth according to your conscience. And the conscience is another matter which has no physical reality upon which many physical “things” depend on for their life. Such as a being, which is human, and has been decided by another being, which is human, to kill/murder by abortion. Or are your neurons a special matter that are sentient of themselves Dogma Doug? Hmm, I wonder if you understand that last sentence Dogma Doug? I find you playing the fool when a sentence trys to make you open that dogmatic mind and understand what your dogmatism has closed off to your conscience.
But, I shall make a statement which descibes a “accident” of your substance, Dogma Doug. You are a preacher for the death of innocent human beings. And that statment is 100% true. To deny that truth is to deny that a fetus is a human being, which leads you into a reality not conforming to truth, by reason of your dogmatic conscience.
You are a preacher who preaches healing by death of a human being, by another human being.
Maybe you answered my question already Dogma Doug, but given a chance to kill a human being by you performing a abortion, what reasons do you give for NOT and FOR performing a abortion by you, Dogma Doug?
My dogma is for living and your dogma is for killing. It gets no more simple then that Dogma Doug. It is in the “sacrifice for life” that seperates good and evil(insert bad wrong,negative) in humanity, Dogma Doug.
That is what Solzhenitsyn meant in discoverying how men become good or bad/evil/wrong in their personal life on this planet.
“On morality, don’t you think it is ideas and ideals? Don’t you think there would have to be “somebody” in the first place – a consciousness with cares/vaulations/desires, etc., before there would be any such thing as morality?”
You didn’t read the article I suggested to you, did you? Have you ever read an ethics or philosophy book?
Doug 7:55: Janet, I sure think I did. How about answering the question?
I thought the question was hypothetical. I think you know how I would answer. Morality and the common good are not necessarily the same thing, I’m not talking about religious morals here. I’m talking about the common good for a society and you keep talking about individuals. I already know how you feel about individuals (this “consciousness” that you refer to). So I think we are still in a different place on this.
Since NO ONE has good argument against abortion, which are your words, is that statment by you a absolute truth?
No, yllas, you are again taking things out of context. Abortion is not only “by itself” here, for consideration, since there is also the pregnant woman to consider.
As I’ve said before, I do not think that anybody has a good argument against abortion – to the extent that we would take away the freedom that women currently have in the matter. I also realize that some people think they do have a good argument against abortion (and thus there’s a lot of arguing that goes on about it).
I would also say that your opinion would be that “there is not a good enough argument for abortion that we would allow the unborn to be killed.”
Now, I’m not going to go into paroxysms over you about that, I think it’s just a given. (See, it’s really not that hard.) (Although for some reason it does seem to be very hard for you.)
This shows that for themselves some people DO have a good enough argument against abortion, and thus they probably should not have an abortion per that. This is not saying that public policy should be made, there, but that one’s own opinion about one’s own body has some necessary weight (IMO if you want) and that as is often the case, society is best served by allowing the individual their freedom, absent compelling need otherwise.
There is a pattern here – you lying, taking things out of context, fantasizing, etc., then it’s refuted, then you don’t reply and disappear for a few days, then come back, saying the exact same things….. What the hey….
Janet: I thought the question was hypothetical. I think you know how I would answer. Morality and the common good are not necessarily the same thing, I’m not talking about religious morals here. I’m talking about the common good for a society and you keep talking about individuals. I already know how you feel about individuals (this “consciousness” that you refer to). So I think we are still in a different place on this.
Janet, it’s all the same thing. One’s opinion about what is for the common good will be reflected in one’s morality, and the same is true for groups of people and for all people. A given person may be conflicted and have mixed feelings about some things, and the same is true for groups of people too, but in the end there’s a bottom line as to what we want.
It is more for the common good that we allow women the freedom they now have in the matter of abortion or not, or is it more to ban or further restrict abortions? Same deal.
Doug 7:47: It’s not all the same, IMO. Let’s agree to disagree here.
“What case can be made that the victim’s view should be trumped by that of the rapist? Wouldn’t the suffering there be greater than that of the rapist if not allowed to rape? I realize that suffering isn’t the end-all of the debate, but I see it the same way as with not having the view of others trump that of the pregnant woman.”
MK: It seems to me that you have just switched from morality comes from desire, to morality is based on avoidance of suffering. These two things contradict themselves.
MK, no – same deal. People don’t desire to suffer, I don’t desire they suffer, as with the rape victim, etc. Lots of our laws are based on opinions against what we feel makes us suffer.
……
“I do feel there is no “evil” or “good” in any absolute sense. But we most certainly can say the Holocaust was wrong, because we feel that way. Again, morality = feelings.”
While your argument fits your theory from the victims point of view (it feels bad to be raped, therefore it is bad), you change when we look through the rapists eyes. He says rape feels good, so it is right, and you say that he is wrong because he is causing suffering. Have I got that right?
Again, I don’t think it’s a good hypothetical, since what rapist is actually going to say “rape is right….”? However, even going with it, I have my opinion, which won’t necessarily be the same as anybody else’s – victim or perpetrator. In this case, I and just about everybody on earth, really, would take the victim’s side, but that’s still relative to us. The notion that we couldn’t say “the Holocaust was wrong” is crazy because we already do say that.
The “suffering” of the rapist, if not allowed to rape, is (at the least) far, far less than that of the victim, thus there’s not gonna be much argument about it.
……
If I understand your premise correctly, that morality=feeling, then there is no good or bad. Or they co exist equally.
Yes, morality is feelings, ideas, ideals, opinions etc. There is plenty of “good” and “bad” but they’ll always be in the opinion of some entity.
……
Now you might counter that YOU think rape is wrong because it causes it’s victim to suffer and then we would have three opinions of whether rape is good.
The rapist says it’s good because it feels good.
The rapee says it’s bad because it feels bad.
And you say it’s bad because someone suffers.
To me, in your eyes, from your point of view, it sounds like you do indeed believe in an absolute moral system…if someone suffers, then it is bad.
Viewed in a vacuum like that, yes. We all make unprovable assumptions, and for me it does boil down to suffering, i.e. in general “suffering is bad”. I’d say the common good means less suffering. It will often come to the difference in suffering between two or more people, so it can get more complicated, but yeah, for me suffering is a good bit of the bottom line.
……
Now the question remains, who decides which one of you is right. Bobby and I would say we look to an outside source, God/Moral law, and then we can know for sure. You say we look to society to decide. Which leads to the question “What if society decides that the rapist wins?”…Which will probably lead you to say that you would be unhappy, but that’s the way it is. But to Bobby and I, this is unacceptable. It leaves so much open to interpretation, that in the end, it is indeed might makes right, if push comes to shove.
“Might” is going to have an effect, no matter what we believe. We may dislike or like the results and say “it’s wrong” or “it’s right,” but that’s always the case. For a law to be in effect, there has to be sufficient opinion for it – and there we haven’t even gotten to whether you or I disagree with it.
Again, it’s the same thing – it’s Bobby, me, and you having our say, giving our opinions. Doesn’t matter whether we ascribe our reasoning to God or other “external” sources or not. There is no “knowing for sure” with your way, anymore than there is with mine – it all goes to the unprovable assumptions we make.
I am also not saying “look to society,” necessarily. I may not agree with society on a given thing, same as you. I realize some things are unacceptable to you, and so is taking away the freedom that women have in the matter of continuing and ending pregnancies, to many people.
……
What do you think about sacrifice for the common good?
Hopefully it will be up to the sacrificer, i.e. not against their will. If it’s not that simple, then again I’d look to see where the least suffering lies.
It’s not all the same, IMO. Let’s agree to disagree here.
Janet – heh – I think it’s a given that we disagree, but to me it does seem the same.
Our feelings of what is for the common good will be reflected in our morality.
The common good and morality are determined intellectually, not through feelings.
Janet, we think about it all, so yeah, “intellectually” comes into play, but in the end it’s what we want and don’t want.
Doug,
The “suffering” of the rapist, if not allowed to rape, is (at the least) far, far less than that of the victim, thus there’s not gonna be much argument about it.
But isn’t that a “judgment” call on your part? Are you saying that is definitely more suffering on the part of the victim than on the part of the rapist, or that YOU (and most of society) feels that way? Cuz the rapist’s opinion must be just as valid as yours or the victims for your hypothesis to work. I’m not talking about law here, just that his feelings are equally valid, and that for you to say otherwise is to say that there is an outside right and wrong in this situation.
Let’s say your wife meets Hisman and falls madly, passionately in love (you know, she has feelings for him. She informs you that she is leaving you for him.
You suffer. If she stays, she suffers. Society has no opinion as it doesn’t affect them. So this is between your and your wife. Period. Are either of you wrong? Are either of you right? Why?
MK, sure it’s a judgment, it’s a valuation that we make, and that’s why I say there’s not going to be much argument about it (since almost everybody is going to be on the side of the victim, not the rapist).
I think you’d agree there is more suffering on the part of the victim if raped than for the rapist if not allowed to rape. I also realize it doesn’t “have” to be that way, i.e. in an extreme example perhaps the victim would not suffer much at all, but here too people don’t decide using such extreme examples rather than what normally occurs.
We are not talking about whose opinion is “valid” between the rapist and the victim, we are talking about our opinion versus theirs. Sure there is an “outside right and wrong” here – since any opinion other than the rapist’s is external to him, for example. Again, morality has to be in “somebody’s” opinion.
Okay, my wife meets HisMan, and wants to be with him. Yes, I would suffer. This does happen in real life, once in a while, as you know. There is no one “right” or “wrong” about it. Sometimes one or both people are better off splitting up, sometimes they’re better off staying together. Often, at least in the short term, there’s no “good” way to solve things – somebody is going to suffer quite a bit.
We are not talking about whose opinion is “valid” between the rapist and the victim, we are talking about our opinion versus theirs.
Again, morality has to be in “somebody’s” opinion.
And you wonder why we’re confused. Both opinions must be valid in the sense that both are equal if value, objectively. You’re saying that which side the coin falls on is subjective. But there ARE two sides to the coin…objectively speaking they are equal, if only because morals equal opinion. You can’t say that one opinion is more valuable. You can say the most people would bet on the coin falling on heads, but you can’t say that the coin doesn’t start out on equal terms.
Rapist…has opinion. His opinion, objectively, before he even tells us what it is, is equally as valuable as anyones.
The victims opinion is equally as valuable, objectively before she even states it. The opinion itself, not what the opinion is. Their right to their opinion, if you will.
So if their blank, objective right to have an equal opinion starts out the same, then what gives his more value than hers once it is known? Other than the desire of other people weighing in and tipping the scales?
If it is one on one. No other opinions allowed? Who is right and who is wrong? I’m pretty sure you’ll say no one, cuz there is no one to have any feelings one way or the other to break the tie.
So what if your wife wasn’t in love with Hisman, but just disregarded your feelings, couldn’t care less and slept with him to satisfy her “feeling” or “desires”…would she be wrong? Again, remembering that yours and her opinion is the only one that counts? She claims she has the right to sleep with whomever she pleases and stopping her would cause her suffering, you claim suffering for different reasons. And what you would do is not what I’m asking. Divorce, reconcilliation…not asking. Only want to know if your wife was wrong when she slept with Hisman…
Just answer the questions I’ve have asked you Dogma Doug. I take nothing out of context since the statement you wrote is a complete thought. A enclosed thought issued by your dogmatic mind. What percentage of truth is in the statement that “NO ONE has a good argument against abortion”.? I do not include the rest of the statement, “they just think they do”, which insults the intelligence of ALL that oppose the killing of human beings. Which logical fallacy do you think “they just think they do” is Dogma Doug?.
But, once again, you begin ALL rebutals to any question of your dogma with a simple closed minded NO. Do you see it Dogma Doug. A NO answer to any question is a absolute statement, if not qualified with a maybe or possible. Interesting that a agnostic is always reaching for a absolute statment when your dogma is questioned.
Besides the fallacies of Ad Hominem, Ad Hominem TU QUOQUE( used quite often by you Dogma Doug). Appeal to authority, Appeal to Power,Appeal to common Practice. Appeal to Tradition,,used quite exclusively when making myths claims of abortion. Of course when asked for book,chapter,page, concerning your myths about abortion, you vanish also. Or fail to answer the question. Appeal to popularity. And of course Poisoning the Well. I will gladly quote what you wrote that violate those helpful hints to arriving at truth, since truth may and can be arrived at by answering a beginning question concerning absolute truths and dogma. What percentage Dogma Doug? Don’t want to answer since it traps you in a dilemma of being a dogmatic mind or being unable to defend the lack of truth in a “absolute statement”, if answered by less then 100%. You get it yet Dogma Doug? A contradiction(of truth) never arrives at truth, but is used by dogmatist to arrive at their dogmatism as a never failing doubt in thier mind. It’s not a trick question Dogma Doug, but to coax out of you the fact that your a dogmatist for abortion.
By ignoring a simple question, which concerns the subject of absolute truth, your playing the fool Dogma Doug. Such intellectual sloth is not normal for a person who has preached for abortion, and exhibits a dogmatic mind condition for abortion.
One of your reasons for abortion is the logical fallacy of the appeal to Fear through population control. May I suggest to you Dogma Doug, that any famine or shortage of matter to live on this planet is always made into a shortage by government, or mankind. Right now such actions by man are making shortages into a fact. Of course, Jimma Carter was hoisted on his facts, and oil prices plummeted after he left office. False facts made a fool outta him, and asking for a sacrifice which made him a anathema to Americans. In fact, from Mao, to Stalin, famine is a legitimate tool of government in controlling people for a non-physical reality beginning with a thought; Communism. To assure you that I didn’t make those thoughts up Dogma Doug, maybe a read of the book by Teddy White, In Search OF History, might defuse that dogma about your appeal to too people fallacy. Besides, your denial in modern agricultural science and transportation, which has eliminated famine as a practical matter makes you seem a pessimist. Hmm, a appeal to pessimism. I accuse you of pessimistic dogmatism Dogma Doug, and use your writings to prove my statement.
BTW, Dogma Doug. My questions are directed at a statement YOU WROTE. To write about “women” and some other matters is not the subject of my questions to YOU, and is irrelevent to the question asked you. In fact, it is the fallacy of Ignoratio Elenchi which you are now using to “miss the point” of a simple question directed at a declaritive statement you wrote.
Notice the “ignor” in that fallacy Dogma Doug?
Ah, just like child, answer the question Dogma Doug. You commit the fallacy of “ignore and miss the point” until many posters here just end up writing to you some phrase, such as, “let’s agree to disagree”. It’s the dogma that they are butting up against.
Yllas, again, lies, things taken out of context, and your frequent brand of loopy fantasy.
It’s said that we shouldn’t feed trolls, and a few people here have even reminded me of it, so if anything be glad for the food you’ve gotten.
If we are ever really interested in honest discussion, let me know.
“We are not talking about whose opinion is “valid” between the rapist and the victim, we are talking about our opinion versus theirs.”
“Again, morality has to be in “somebody’s” opinion.”
MK: And you wonder why we’re confused. Both opinions must be valid in the sense that both are equal if value, objectively. You’re saying that which side the coin falls on is subjective. But there ARE two sides to the coin…objectively speaking they are equal, if only because morals equal opinion. You can’t say that one opinion is more valuable. You can say the most people would bet on the coin falling on heads, but you can’t say that the coin doesn’t start out on equal terms.
There is no “objective” value to those opinions, MK, no, but “valid” is in the eye of the beholder. Sure, I can say that one opinion is more valuable – it’s my perception, and in truth it’d be yours too, and it’s that way for almost everybody (if not everybody) in this case.
It’s not the “equal, objectively, because there is no objective value” concept that figures into this. It’s what people (or other consciousnesses) think.
…..
Rapist…has opinion. His opinion, objectively, before he even tells us what it is, is equally as valuable as anyones.
In a way, yes, but again, the value is a perception, and it has to be perceived, first, before valuation is made.
…..
The victims opinion is equally as valuable, objectively before she even states it. The opinion itself, not what the opinion is. Their right to their opinion, if you will.
So if their blank, objective right to have an equal opinion starts out the same, then what gives his more value than hers once it is known? Other than the desire of other people weighing in and tipping the scales?
Well, that’s it – it’s the valuation made by “somebody.”
…..
If it is one on one. No other opinions allowed? Who is right and who is wrong? I’m pretty sure you’ll say no one, cuz there is no one to have any feelings one way or the other to break the tie.
Each says they are right, and that the other is wrong.
……
So what if your wife wasn’t in love with Hisman, but just disregarded your feelings, couldn’t care less and slept with him to satisfy her “feeling” or “desires”…would she be wrong? Again, remembering that yours and her opinion is the only one that counts? She claims she has the right to sleep with whomever she pleases and stopping her would cause her suffering, you claim suffering for different reasons. And what you would do is not what I’m asking. Divorce, reconcilliation…not asking. Only want to know if your wife was wrong when she slept with Hisman…
You’ve constructed a hypothetical that is self-contradictory, because as our feelings are, she wouldn’t just “care less.” Other than that, if we both felt differently, then who knows?
As things are now, she would be wrong in that she’d be going against promises we made each other.
Doug,
You’ve constructed a hypothetical that is self-contradictory, because as our feelings are, she wouldn’t just “care less.” Other than that, if we both felt differently, then who knows?
*
As things are now, she would be wrong in that she’d be going against promises we made each other.
Well of course it’s a hypothetical…the point is that she could still care about you, but not care that she is hurting you. There is no objectiv to way care about someone, remember. It’s all about valuation. So if she values her freedom to sleep with whomever she wants, then that’s that.
So are you saying that she WOULD be wrong, or that YOU would believe her to be wrong. Cuz I just don’t see how her breaking her promises to you could be objectively wrong.
Also, if we don’t agree that everyones opinion starts out as equally valid, then you negate the notion that we have equal opportunities to feel and desire what we wish.
I desire to please God. You say that that is my right, because it’s all ABOUT desire. The law has no problem with it, so go for it.
You desire to please yourself. And that is your right, because it’s all about desire. The law has no problem with, so go for it.
But if we don’t start out with the equal right to desire whatever we want, then there must be some outside force telling one of us that we have more of a right to our desires than the next guy.
But you say there is no objective outside law or force. So we must all be equal in our right to our desires, barring doing something unlawful. Even then I should have the right to do anything I want, morally speaking, but not necessarily legally speaking.
It’s just occurring to me as I’m writing this…do you believe that we have any rights at all that aren’t given to us by law? Like any objective natural rights?
Well of course it’s a hypothetical…the point is that she could still care about you, but not care that she is hurting you. There is no objectiv to way care about someone, remember. It’s all about valuation. So if she values her freedom to sleep with whomever she wants, then that’s that.
MK, not really – I’d say that caring about someone means caring about hurting them.
……
So are you saying that she WOULD be wrong, or that YOU would believe her to be wrong. Cuz I just don’t see how her breaking her promises to you could be objectively wrong.
It’s breaking promises we’ve made to each other. It’s rooted in our desires, including that we keep promises.
……
Also, if we don’t agree that everyones opinion starts out as equally valid, then you negate the notion that we have equal opportunities to feel and desire what we wish.
“Starting out” isn’t the deal. It’s the valuations that come later. It’s not a “notion” that we have “opportunities to feel and desire.” We simply do so – that’s a premise.
……
I desire to please God. You say that that is my right, because it’s all ABOUT desire. The law has no problem with it, so go for it.
You desire to please yourself. And that is your right, because it’s all about desire. The law has no problem with, so go for it.
But if we don’t start out with the equal right to desire whatever we want, then there must be some outside force telling one of us that we have more of a right to our desires than the next guy.
No, we have desires, period. There is not the “right to desire.” It’s part of the human condition, part of being the self-conscious race and individual entities we are.
…..
But you say there is no objective outside law or force. So we must all be equal in our right to our desires, barring doing something unlawful. Even then I should have the right to do anything I want, morally speaking, but not necessarily legally speaking.
Again, it’s not like we attribute a “right to desire.” You can’t totally separate societal morals and laws (because they really are related). I think you should have a right to do anything you want, to the extent that it doesn’t impinge on the rights of others.
……
It’s just occurring to me as I’m writing this…do you believe that we have any rights at all that aren’t given to us by law? Like any objective natural rights?
No – rights are ideas that exist in sentient minds. You could say that it’s “natural” for people and societies to have certain laws, due to the commonality of desire we see as so prevalent, but it’s not “external” to the mind, not objective – by definition.
All I ask is a answer to a simple question.
You wrote a statement. ” No one has a good argument against abortion, they just think they do”.
Question. Is that a absolute truth? Yes or No Dogma Doug. To argue context is to drag the question away into a argument about other statments which you make. In fact, the argument about context is based on ambiguity. So, what ambiguity is present in a your statment; “NO ONE has a good argument against abortion, they just think they do” Where is the ambiguity Dogma Doug? Why, you and Obama must think that Americans are unable to understand a simple declarative sentence.
If it is not a absolutely truthful statement by you Dogma Doug, then what percentage of non-truth is contained in that statment? In fact, the question may be asked of any declarative statment by you Dogma Doug. So, I ask a answer to one declarative statment you wrote, and you fly into a fallacy rant reply.
Replying to me, by commiting the fallacy of social conformance is typical of a person with a unquestionable dogma.
Answer the simple question Dogma Doug.
From there we can debate the contradiction of making a absolute statment, and then denying the amount of truth within that statment. Or admiting the statment is a absolutely truthful statment, which you are willing to defend. You wrote it Dogma Doug, and now play the fool, and you continue the logical mistake of Ignoratio Elenchi, compounded with a appeal to social conformity as a answer.
P.s. For a person who lives on decontructing human beings, and taking human beings out of context, your have a amazing blind spot in you, Dogma Doug.
” Rights are ideas which exist in sentient minds”.
A statement by Dogma Doug.
Question. Do ideas exist in neurons Dogma Doug?
Question. Are neurons sentient Dogma Doug?
Question. Where in the neuron is the “idea” stored? There are three types of neurons; sensory,multipolar, and interneurons. Which one of those neurons does sentience arise from Dogma Doug?
Question. If neurons, are the basis of sentience, does the physical matter of neurons manufacture and replace self awarness daily, monthly or yearly, by being fed a sentience food Dogma Doug?
Now, of course the whole is greater then the parts Dogma Doug, but those parts, neurons have no self awareness in them at all. Where does sentience or self awarness begin in physical matter Dogma Doug?
So are you saying that she WOULD be wrong, or that YOU would believe her to be wrong. Cuz I just don’t see how her breaking her promises to you could be objectively wrong.
*
It’s breaking promises we’ve made to each other. It’s rooted in our desires, including that we keep promises.
You didn’t answer the question. Obviously, her desires are now different than yours. Are you saying that the only objective moral truth is keeping promises and never changing your desires?
MK, not really – I’d say that caring about someone means caring about hurting them.
But that’s your valuation. If your wife decides that that is not her definition of caring, who is to say that she is wrong?
No, we have desires, period. There is not the “right to desire.” It’s part of the human condition, part of being the self-conscious race and individual entities we are.
That’s my point and what I’m trying to say. The rapist just does have an opinion. The victim just does have an opinion. They both just DO have desires. So what exactly changes…what makes his desire wrong and hers right, if both would suffer equally in their own minds and nobody elses opinion or desire enters into the picture?
I think you should have a right to do anything you want, to the extent that it doesn’t impinge on the rights of others.
But that again, is just the way YOU see it. I see it differently. I think you should be able to do whatever you want even if it DOES impinge on the rights of others. If you and I are the only two people whose vote matters, which of us wins? why?
Doug,
I know you get frustrated by yllas, but I personally think his 12:17 post is brilliant…will you answer it?
Mk.
Dogma Doug will not answer those few questions concerning the problem of where a non -aware, non- sentient cell, named the neuron, has within it this sentience, which Doug prattles on in defence of his dogma for killing human beings.
Even if he trys to answer the question, the fact remains that the brain is made up of glia cells to the tune of 90%. The neurons “cover the brain” to a depth of 3 millimeters , the rest of the brain being glia cells. Which means that all those glia cells might be the hidden source of self awareness from unaware physical matter. Or maybe the astrocytes or oligodendrites manufacture a “physical matter” that makes awareness come alive in a non-sentient cell, since the latest research involves them as the “chef and food maker” for neurons.
Line um up Dogma Doug, billions of non aware neurons and show me where in those brain cells, is the physical matter which produces a idea. Maybe, “sentience”, is in the nucleus of the neuron, which contains the same material as a liver cell does. You know Dogma Doug, organelles such as mitochondria and cytoplasm.
Maybe “self awareness of a idea”, is in serotonin or dopamine, or the fifty other neurotransmitters which have been found so far.
Afterall Dogma Doug, mathematics is a totally abstract idea, and if you could find in those brain cells, named neurons, where they produce mathematic ideas in those neurons, you would be the greatest scientist of all time, since you could then produce Bobby Bambino’s, by the giga bytes daily.
Them again, maybe you can inject some sentience into a neuron and make medical history Dogma Doug.
I ask is a answer to a simple question.
yllas, fairly calm today, eh?
…..
You wrote a statement. ” No one has a good argument against abortion, they just think they do”. Question. Is that a absolute truth?
No. I’m pretty sure it was you that asked me, and I gave my opinion.
If I felt there was a good enough argument against it, I’d be for banning it, and thus would not be pro-choice.
I know you get frustrated by yllas, but I personally think his 12:17 post is brilliant…will you answer it?
MK, it’s not “frustrating” to have the nuts be on the other side.
Yllas is intelligent though, (yet idiotic in her assumption that I would not answer, etc.), and if she’s interested in discussing things then great…
Do ideas exist in neurons?
Who knows? There is much that is yet unknown about consciousness. It may be that enough neurons and indeed in general – a brain that is complex enough – and consciousness can then be there.
Are neurons sentient?
On their own, I don’t think so.
Where in the neuron is the “idea” stored?
As above, I don’t think that’s the case.
There are three types of neurons; sensory,multipolar, and interneurons. Which one of those neurons does sentience arise from?
Again, we don’t know, and don’t know if that’s the case – there may be more to it than neurons alone.
If neurons, are the basis of sentience, does the physical matter of neurons manufacture and replace self awarness daily, monthly or yearly, by being fed a sentience food?
It’s not a given that they are the basis, alone.
Now, of course the whole is greater then the parts, but those parts, neurons have no self awareness in them at all. Where does sentience or self awarness begin in physical matter?
There too, we don’t know how much it takes. An organism will become self-aware at some point, but as of yet we don’t have any hard and fast “rule” about it. And of course there’s the matter of defining exactly what we mean by self-consciousness.
So are you saying that she WOULD be wrong, or that YOU would believe her to be wrong. Cuz I just don’t see how her breaking her promises to you could be objectively wrong.
“It’s breaking promises we’ve made to each other. It’s rooted in our desires, including that we keep promises.”
You didn’t answer the question. Obviously, her desires are now different than yours. Are you saying that the only objective moral truth is keeping promises and never changing your desires?
No, I never said there was any objective stuff there. As things are now, we both want to keep our promises and for the other person to do it too.
I did answer the question – I would feel it’s wrong for her to break the promise, just as she would feel it if it were me that wanted to go be with somebody else.
“MK, not really – I’d say that caring about someone means caring about hurting them.”
But that’s your valuation.
I’d say it’s a normally-applicable truth. Person A cares about person B. Will person A then want to hurt B? Will A not care about hurting B? I’d say of course not.
……
If your wife decides that that is not her definition of caring, who is to say that she is wrong?
There is more than one thing, there. It’s not really a matter of “deciding that it’s not her definition of caring.” What, she’s going to say that caring about somebody does not mean caring about hurting them? Again, I’d say of course not.
For just her and me, she could change, yes, and though there would be some suffering, it’s not necessarily wrong for one person to leave. It depends on the situation.
My dad and mom got divorced over 30 years ago. In the end, despite some rough times along the way, everybody agreed that it was for the best.
……
No, we have desires, period. There is not the “right to desire.” It’s part of the human condition, part of being the self-conscious race and individual entities we are.
That’s my point and what I’m trying to say. The rapist just does have an opinion. The victim just does have an opinion. They both just DO have desires. So what exactly changes…what makes his desire wrong and hers right, if both would suffer equally in their own minds and nobody elses opinion or desire enters into the picture?
Suffering doesn’t have to be considered. I usually consider it, but that’s me, not necessarily these hypothetical people, although I think that wanting to exercise one’s desire simply does mean avoiding suffering, to some extent, anyway.
Anyway, they wouldn’t have to suffer equally in this example and in practice I think that’d almost always be the case – not equal.
Nothing changes – they both have their desires, their valuations, their own feelings, and that’s it.
…..
“I think you should have a right to do anything you want, to the extent that it doesn’t impinge on the rights of others.”
But that again, is just the way YOU see it. I see it differently. I think you should be able to do whatever you want even if it DOES impinge on the rights of others. If you and I are the only two people whose vote matters, which of us wins? why?
Then you and I are not really a society, since we’re so far apart on that. It’s not even the question of voting, since we’re obviously different, there. What would be the point? If we are talking about our philosophies, then we will disagree.
If it’s only the two of us that matter, then where do you see the concept of ‘rights’ coming into it?
Doug,
I’d say it’s a normally-applicable truth. Person A cares about person B. Will person A then want to hurt B? Will A not care about hurting B? I’d say of course not.
I understand you’d say that. But it’s still your subjective valuation…but it smacks suspiciously of moral objectivity!
mk:
Speaking of subjective valuations and moral objectivity – Do you the remember the book: “All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten? I loved this book!
All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten
Robert Fulghum
Share everything.
Play fair.
Don’t hit people.
Put things back where you found them.
Clean up your own mess.
Don’t take things that aren’t yours.
Say you’re sorry when you hurt somebody.
Wash your hands before you eat.
Flush.
Warm cookies and cold milk are good for you.
Live a balanced life–learn some and think some and draw and paint and sing and dance and play and work every day some.
Take a nap every afternoon.
When you go out into the world, watch out for traffic, hold hands, and stick together.
Be aware of wonder. Remember the little seed in the Styrofoam cup: The roots go down and the plant goes up and nobody really knows how or why, but we are all like that.
Goldfish and hamsters and white mice and even the little seed in the Styrofoam cup–they all die. So do we.
And then remember the Dick-and-Jane books and the first word you learned–the biggest word of all–LOOK.
“I’d say it’s a normally-applicable truth. Person A cares about person B. Will person A then want to hurt B? Will A not care about hurting B? I’d say of course not.”
I understand you’d say that. But it’s still your subjective valuation…but it smacks suspiciously of moral objectivity!
No, MK, it’s me saying how I think people are. It’s not my “valuation,” it’s observing human behavior. It’s just saying,”People usually feel this way.”
Doug,
Which of course brings us back to me claiming that the fact that people USUALLY feel that way…without any prompting, that they have an innate sense of what is fair, what is right, what is “normal”, what is natural as far as relationships go, speaks to moral objectivity.
MOST people do feel this way. Why? I say, because this truth exists outside of ourselves. If it didn’t, it wouldn’t be universal.
Yllas asked you which neurons exactly, hold these feelings. And I think he made a good point. Which neurons are they exactly, that create this universal sense of “If I care about you, I won’t hurt you”? Seriously.
I was at a ballgame the other day and a 2 year old (She was HILARIOUS) walked up to me, pointed, put on her angry face and said “STOP!” I said “stop what?” And she said “NO!” I said “I disagree” and she said “STOP”! I said “Why do I have to stop?” and she said “CUZ!” and I said “CUZ WHY” and she said “CUZ” and I said that wasn’t a good enough reason and she said “NO!” and I said “Do you like ice cream?” and she said “NO!” and I said “Do you want a million dollars and she said “NO”! and I said “Do you speak English?” and she said “NO!” and I said “Are you always this bossy?” and she said “NO!” and I said then why are you being so bossy now? and she said “CUZ!”…
My point is, I am not satisfied with the answer “CUZ!” and that is what you seem to come up with…
Why do people behave this way?
Cuz they just do.
Why is rape wrong?
Cuz society says so.
Why does everyone feel that if you love someone you won’t hurt them?
Cuz that’s just the way they are.
Don’t you ever go deeper? Don’t you wonder WHY?
Don’t you want to know where these valuations and feelings come from????
So help me God, if you say “NO!” I’m gonna pop you!
Can’t wait to see this…..
mk: I used to do that to my daughter when she was little and grumpy. Isn’t it fun?
It’s hilarious when little kids start saying, “No!”
After a while they realize what it means when Mommy & Daddy say it, and a little later it’s like, Hey… I can do it too!
MK: Which of course brings us back to me claiming that the fact that people USUALLY feel that way…without any prompting, that they have an innate sense of what is fair, what is right, what is “normal”, what is natural as far as relationships go, speaks to moral objectivity.
Good discussion, MK. There is a sense of “objective” that does mean what applies to all, as with it not being dependent on the individual, even though in this case we’re talking about a group of individual opinions.
I agree that much here is indeed innate in people, but that is not saying there is any external source for it. All that’s needed is for people to be similar in many ways, which of course is the case.
……
MOST people do feel this way. Why? I say, because this truth exists outside of ourselves. If it didn’t, it wouldn’t be universal.
It’s not universal, it’s circumstantial, i.e, on some issues there’s this great commonality of opinion while on others there’s not.
Doug,
AAAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHH…
I agree that much here is indeed innate in people, but that is not saying there is any external source for it. All that’s needed is for people to be similar in many ways, which of course is the case.
……
Sooooooo, basically you’re answer is…”CUZ”?
Yllas asked you which neurons exactly, hold these feelings. And I think he made a good point. Which neurons are they exactly, that create this universal sense of “If I care about you, I won’t hurt you”? Seriously.
“Yllas” is a she.
Nobody, as far as I know, says that feelings come “from a neuron.”
There’s certainly a good bit we don’t know, but we do find certain neural signatures in self-conscious brains, and we find self-consciousness in brains of a certain complexity, as with dolphins, primates, elephants, etc.
Neural tissue is said to be encoded with engrams, which provide a physical basis for memories and consciousness. The temporal lobe and hippocamus are often damaged in amnesiac patients, suggesting some relationship there. I’d say it’s reasonable to think that there is some type of information stored within the neural network/the brain.
Electrodes used to stimulate the temporal lobes of brains have resulted in “memories” or hallucinations, fantasies, etc. It’s not like the brain is separate from consciousness, memory, etc.
Hang on, MK… I’m getting to it. Lots going on here today…
Doug,
That’s cool…I’m running out now anyway. Take your time.
By the way Yllas is not a she. She is a he.
I understand about the neurons etc., and that is where your “sentience” comes from. But where does this valuation process come from? Do you really believe that reasoning, true reasoning, the kind only humans can do, and abstract thought, like language (esp. written), and morality, are all found in neurological connections? You think neuron A connects to neuron B and produces a repugnance to rape?
My point is, I am not satisfied with the answer “CUZ!” and that is what you seem to come up with…
We begin with unprovable assumptions, and you’re going to come up against mine and vice-versa, to some extent. I think that here I am not going beyond what you will acknowledge, however, while as far as attributing morality to God or external sources, absolutes, etc., you are going beyond what I’ll acknowledge.
You’re an idealist, and I think you feel “there has to be more.” That’s an emotional thing, not a matter of physical reality nor of logic.
…..
Why do people behave this way? Cuz they just do.
They behave this way because of how they feel. I think it’s a given that people have feelings, before we get to the consideration of “absolutes” or not. If you’re maintaining that there are external sources for the feelings, then I think the burden of proof is on you. Meanwhile, I’m saying that our motivation is what we want and what we don’t want, and that makes perfect sense either way, i.e. whether or not there are external sources.
……
Why is rape wrong?
Because it’s unwanted, in the opinion of the entity you are referring to. For there to be the perception of “wrong,” there has to be a consciousness there to have it, in the first place.
……
Cuz society says so.
If you are talking about society’s position on it, yes.
……
Why does everyone feel that if you love someone you won’t hurt them? Cuz that’s just the way they are.
I think it’s a matter of definition. Again, we are individuals with feelings – I think you and I both agree on that. The feeling we identify as “love” involves not wanting to hurt someone we love, not wanting them hurt, period. We have such feelings, and we’ve called them “love.”
……
Don’t you ever go deeper? Don’t you wonder WHY? Don’t you want to know where these valuations and feelings come from????
That’s what we’re talking about. We’ve touched on this before. We simply do have self-consciousness, memories, feelings, etc. That’s a premise. It is part and parcel of our being, whether or not one believes in a god.
The question is really “where does consciousness come from?” We know some stuff about this, but of course there’s still a lot we don’t know.
Does it not make sense that if we want a thing, we will say it’s “good”?
……
So help me God, if you say “NO!” I’m gonna pop you!
:: handing over an object ::
Here’s a big styrofoam bat to bop me over the head with. When you’re done, it goes back behind Bethany’s trash compactor.
By the way Yllas is not a she. She is a he.
How do you know that? She’s posted as “uspsgirl…”
…..
I understand about the neurons etc., and that is where your “sentience” comes from. But where does this valuation process come from? Do you really believe that reasoning, true reasoning, the kind only humans can do, and abstract thought, like language (esp. written), and morality, are all found in neurological connections? You think neuron A connects to neuron B and produces a repugnance to rape?
Again, it’s not a matter of a neuron or two neurons. I’m not even saying that the origin of sentience is totally known.
Valuation is not complex. We value what we desire positively, and that which we don’t want negatively. Many other species do it too.
On abstract thought – did you know that dolphins are better at spatial reasoning, as with problem solving, than people are? I think they have a larger brain area devoted to it, or that in dolphins that area of the brain is more densely packed with neurons.
I do think it is our brains that make us the singular species on earth that we are, our tool-making and using tendencies, our capacity for memories and passed-on knowledge, as with writing, etc.
You’re an idealist, and I think you feel “there has to be more.” That’s an emotional thing, not a matter of physical reality nor of logic.
The question of where these emotions come from is most certainly a physical/logical one. They must come from somewhere. I assert that they come from an outside source, yes. You assert that they come from within. I’m asking you to explain how. Not prove. Just tell me your own thoughts. Where do these feelings come from?
That’s what we’re talking about. We’ve touched on this before. We simply do have self-consciousness, memories, feelings, etc. That’s a premise. It is part and parcel of our being, whether or not one believes in a god.
I have NOT mentioned God. You have. Three times now I think. We both know what I think. I’m asking you what you think. You’ve made it clear that these universal, common, pick your word we both know what we’re talking about, feelings exist. I am asking what causes them. It isn’t logical to just say they coincidentally happen. If that were true, then they wouldn’t be common to most men.
…..
They behave this way because of how they feel. I think it’s a given that people have feelings, before we get to the consideration of “absolutes” or not. If you’re maintaining that there are external sources for the feelings, then I think the burden of proof is on you. Meanwhile, I’m saying that our motivation is what we want and what we don’t want, and that makes perfect sense either way, i.e. whether or not there are external sources.
Why do they have feelings? (This would be where you say, cuz)
How do you know that? She’s posted as “uspsgirl…
My understanding is that upsgirl is an anonymous email…I don’t know where it comes from. But I do know that yllas is a guy.
The question is really “where does consciousness come from?” We know some stuff about this, but of course there’s still a lot we don’t know.
Fine then that’s the question…Answer it. Where do YOU, think it comes from. It just is, is NOT an answer. It’s a copout.
I do think it is our brains that make us the singular species on earth that we are, our tool-making and using tendencies, our capacity for memories and passed-on knowledge, as with writing, etc.
Finally, we’re getting somewhere. Why? Why are humans different? What takes place either in our brains as you say, or outside of ourselves as I say, that create us…a unique creature in all of the known universe?
There is a difference between valuation and universal valuation. Allowing for the millions of differences in what people COULD value, how do you account for the relatively few that we DO value, universally?
The question of where these emotions come from is most certainly a physical/logical one. They must come from somewhere. I assert that they come from an outside source, yes. You assert that they come from within. I’m asking you to explain how. Not prove. Just tell me your own thoughts. Where do these feelings come from?
MK, I’d say that sentient, self-aware creatures just plain have them, same as they’re “conscious” in the first place. They are thoughts/perceptions like some other mental operations, and with brains of a certain complexity they arise, same as with consciousness itself. It’s no different than asking why we have thoughts, or “why is there consciousness in the universe?” There just is, and that’s the starting point.
……
“That’s what we’re talking about. We’ve touched on this before. We simply do have self-consciousness, memories, feelings, etc. That’s a premise. It is part and parcel of our being, whether or not one believes in a god.”
I have NOT mentioned God. You have. Three times now I think. We both know what I think. I’m asking you what you think. You’ve made it clear that these universal, common, pick your word we both know what we’re talking about, feelings exist. I am asking what causes them. It isn’t logical to just say they coincidentally happen. If that were true, then they wouldn’t be common to most men.
God is a theoretical construct like all the “externals” and “absolute” deals in the moral realm. My point is that whether such notions appeal to a given person or not, things do simply appeal to them (or not) in the first place. “People believe in God” is a less-applicable deal than “people believe in supernatural things.” The latter doesn’t apply nearly as much as, “people have emotions,” either.
…..
“They behave this way because of how they feel. I think it’s a given that people have feelings, before we get to the consideration of “absolutes” or not. If you’re maintaining that there are external sources for the feelings, then I think the burden of proof is on you. Meanwhile, I’m saying that our motivation is what we want and what we don’t want, and that makes perfect sense either way, i.e. whether or not there are external sources.”
Why do they have feelings? (This would be where you say, cuz)
Well, yeah, because as above, consciousness is the starting point. What can you really prove (even to yourself) other than the fact of your own consciousness? Nothing. It’s all assumptions from there on out. We all make unprovable assumptions, and here I’m going with the idea of us being independent entities, separate consciousnesses. With that in mind, I think you’re with me, so far. And that people have emotions is also a given that I think you’ll agree to.
It’s where those unprovable assumptions diverge that the arguing begins.
…..
I do know that yllas is a guy.
Does he dress up in a female postal worker’s clothes and caper around?
……
The question is really “where does consciousness come from?” We know some stuff about this, but of course there’s still a lot we don’t know.”
Fine then that’s the question…Answer it. Where do YOU, think it comes from. It just is, is NOT an answer. It’s a copout.
Nope, no copout. It can arise within a mind of a certain complexity or “density.” This is what we observe. Staying with what is true for all of us isn’t “copping out,” anymore than is saying, “I’m aware.” We know some, but not all, about this stuff.
……
“I do think it is our brains that make us the singular species on earth that we are, our tool-making and using tendencies, our capacity for memories and passed-on knowledge, as with writing, etc.”
Finally, we’re getting somewhere. Why? Why are humans different? What takes place either in our brains as you say, or outside of ourselves as I say, that create us…a unique creature in all of the known universe?
Better at tool-making and using – this allows us to shape our environment to our fancy, to a large extent, and to make up for any superiorities on the part of other earthly species. It goes hand-in-hand with written language and passing knowledge through the years, building upon the past.
……
There is a difference between valuation and universal valuation. Allowing for the millions of differences in what people COULD value, how do you account for the relatively few that we DO value, universally?
Hold on here – given the enormous similarity that already exists among people, it doesn’t make sense to think it somehow “should” be substantially different. I don’t know that there are “universal” valuations, because of the possible exceptions, even if few and far between.
Some stuff, hunger for food, sex, etc., has an instinctive component to it, i.e. it’s genetic or “hard-wired.” Since our DNA is almost exactly the same from individual to individual (even a chimpanzee is like what – 98.3% the same as a human?) I’d say the expectation would be for similarity.
Doug,
It’s no different than asking why we have thoughts, or “why is there consciousness in the universe?” There just is, and that’s the starting point.
So your answer is “CUZ”…but see, that only means that you don’t have the answer. Not that there isn’t one. You aren’t interested in knowing the answer and I am. But saying “There just is” is like when I’m in Walmart and I ask a clerk where something is. They send me to the opposite end of the store (where it isn’t) instead of simply saying “I don’t know, but let me bring you to someone that does”…lol Just say you don’t know instead of making it sound like you do…cuz you don’t. None of us does.
I do know that yllas is a guy.
Does he dress up in a female postal worker’s clothes and caper around?
I tell you, but then I’d have to kill you.
I’d say the expectation would be for similarity.
So would I. But there are only SOME things that we are similar in, in so great a number that they could be called universal with some exceptions (don’t those prove the rule?) And many of those tend to be on the subject of morality.
Most people think rape, incest, adultery, theft, murder, lying etc are wrong. Most people think that when you care about them you won’t hurt them.
In the Catholic church these are know as virtues. They are also coincidentally, the ten commandments. Universally accepted morality, written in stone..pun inteneded.
Most things however are not universal…like how we view dogs, or whether we eat monkey brains, or whether we drive on the right or left side of the road.
So what makes these moral “truths’ universal, but not EVERYTHING, every thought, like or dislike, universal?
“It’s no different than asking why we have thoughts, or “why is there consciousness in the universe?” There just is, and that’s the starting point.”
So your answer is “CUZ”…but see, that only means that you don’t have the answer. Not that there isn’t one. You aren’t interested in knowing the answer and I am. But saying “There just is” is like when I’m in Walmart and I ask a clerk where something is. They send me to the opposite end of the store (where it isn’t) instead of simply saying “I don’t know, but let me bring you to someone that does”…lol Just say you don’t know instead of making it sound like you do…cuz you don’t. None of us does.
MK, I’m just as interested in knowing as you are, but I don’t have the need to pretend beyond what is demonstrable. etc. I fully admit there is much we do not know, unlike your clerk, and I also don’t make up explanations or go with other people’s made-up explanations. I realize where our assumptions begin. Seems to me you have your things which you believe in, and that after the fact you go with the notion that they are “absolute,” etc. I certainly acknowledge that you believe as you say you do, and that there are others like you, but stating an explanation without knowing is not good, IMO, same as for your Walmart clerk.
……
I do know that yllas is a guy.
“Does he dress up in a female postal worker’s clothes and caper around?”
I tell you, but then I’d have to kill you.
No biggie – Sally already filled me in. Nothing new….
…..
“I’d say the expectation would be for similarity.”
So would I. But there are only SOME things that we are similar in, in so great a number that they could be called universal with some exceptions (don’t those prove the rule?) And many of those tend to be on the subject of morality.
Yeah, sure, we can say that “the exceptions prove the rule,” and with morality the rules are that it’s ideas, ideals, reflections of desire, internal to the mind rather than external to it, etc.
……
Most people think rape, incest, adultery, theft, murder, lying etc are wrong. Most people think that when you care about them you won’t hurt them.
I’m wid ya, so to speak.
…..
In the Catholic church these are know as virtues. They are also coincidentally, the ten commandments. Universally accepted morality, written in stone..pun inteneded.
There is indeed some of the great commonality reflected there, sure. O’ course, abortion was not considered to be “murder” in biblical times, and the Commandment was not prohibiting killing (the Old Testament is chock-full of killing, orders to kill, rules for killing, commands to kill, etc.) – the Commandment, in meaning in all versions of the Bible as well as the wording in some, is “thou shalt not murder.”
…..
Most things however are not universal…like how we view dogs, or whether we eat monkey brains, or whether we drive on the right or left side of the road.
Who knows about “most”? There are practically unlimited numbers of things where the similarity is present and where it’s not.
……
So what makes these moral “truths’ universal, but not EVERYTHING, every thought, like or dislike, universal?
Again, there really aren’t any that are truly “universal” though in a few instances we approach it. If you don’t believe there is such a thing as “human nature” (as well as tendencies among the males and females) then we’re just not gonna be on the same page. In looking at the great commonality we do see at times, there’s genetic coding at work, there’s further probability due to sex, due to the environment one has grown up in, etc. – there’s tons of factors.
I don’t know if mk is coming back tonight……
Doug: I certainly acknowledge that you believe as you say you do, and that there are others like you, but stating an explanation without knowing is not good, IMO, same as for your Walmart clerk.
We CAN know, using logic and reason.
mk said: Most people think rape, incest, adultery, theft, murder, lying etc are wrong. Most people think that when you care about them you won’t hurt them.
Doug said: I’m wid ya, so to speak.
Then you must believe in virtues. There is commonality in virtues around the world.(See Wiki) – Virtue (Latin virtus; Greek ἀρετή) is moral excellence of a person. A virtue is a trait valued as being good. The conceptual opposite of virtue is vice.
There is indeed some of the great commonality reflected there, sure. O’ course, abortion was not considered to be “murder” in biblical times, and the Commandment was not prohibiting killing (the Old Testament is chock-full of killing, orders to kill, rules for killing, commands to kill, etc.) – the Commandment, in meaning in all versions of the Bible as well as the wording in some, is “thou shalt not murder.”
The Old Testament took place in a different culture, a different time. There will be parts that do not apply in the same sense today as they did then.
It’s getting late..Ciao!
Doug,
Murder, in the Old Testament vein, means Unjust Killings. Which is what abortion is. To say that abortion was not murder in those days is ludicrous. You (nor I) have any idea if it was considered murder. We don’t even know how many were being done. Heck, we don’t even know how many were being done a hundred years ago.
All chimpanzees share the same diet. Birds make their nests the same way every year and migrate in the same direction. Cows eat grass. Cats eat rodents.
My point is that in the non human animal world there aren’t any differences among individual animals. You can say “all” and mean it with much certainty. And they have no moral code. They behave certain ways and give absolutely no thought to why they do.
Humans are not like that. We do have to make choices everyday. Should I cheat on the test, or shouldn’t I. Should I lie to get what I want, or not.
This is unique to humanity. If we were truly working from the brain and the brain alone, we would all think the same way. It is these differences that I am interested in.
In looking at the great commonality we do see at times, there’s genetic coding at work, there’s further probability due to sex, due to the environment one has grown up in, etc. – there’s tons of factors.
If this were true in the sense of morals then not only would we view the sames things as good, we wouldn’t need to think about them. We would just do them. Like the animals do. And then they wouldn’t be morals, they’d be instinct.
MK, I’m just as interested in knowing as you are, but I don’t have the need to pretend beyond what is demonstrable. etc. I fully admit there is much we do not know, unlike your clerk, and I also don’t make up explanations or go with other people’s made-up explanations.
I don’t pretend Doug. I believe. To say I pretend is really condescending.
We are on equal footing here. We DO begin at the same place. We both begin with animals and humans are different. We are able to reason, they are not. We are able to make value judgments, they are not. We are able to make conscious choices, they are not.
Where we differ, is on the answer to the question why. You have no more valid reasons for believing that we are just wired that way then I do for believing that these abilities come from an outside source.
You say I have no proof, and I say I have proof that we are indeed different. The fact that we are aware that we can make choice, think rationally, use language…IS proof that we are different. No great leap there.
So you’re speculating that it is all in our head is no more reasonable than me speculating it is outside of our head. I believe mine has more validity, because if it were all inside our head, then we would be more universal in thought across the board and not just on moral issues.
You say we are universally in agreement on moral issues and I say, those that are out of sinc with the basics, do not prove that there is no moral code, but rather that there is. They just don’t follow it. If there were no exceptions, then we’d be back to the concept of instinct, and it WOULD be all in our heads. But it’s not, and we’re not, which shows that something “different” is happening.
It is these very exceptions that prove my point.
If you were correct, then we could use the term “ALL”. But we can’t. We can only say most. We don’t say “Most wolves eat meat” or “Most cats chase mice” We say ALL wolves eat meat, and ALL cats chase mice.
Here you’ll tell me an story about a cat you know that has a mouse friend, and I’ll say yes, but he was “taught/influenced” by an outside source to do so. He didn’t naturally befriend a mouse. He was introduced by an outside force to a pet…
If you show me a wolve that doesn’t eat meat, I will say that he doesn’t live in the wild. An outside influence changed his diet.
When we, as humans, think differently about what constitutes moral behavior, as I do from you, then I would say, it stands to reason that we are being influenced from an outside source, just like our cat.
In nature, other than humans, everything behaves according to it’s own nature unless influenced by something from outside.
I say, that it is logical to carry that over to humans.
This is why having sex sans marriage, killing our own children, committing adultery…is like ignoring that outside influence and instead reverting to animal like behavior. When we ignore that outside influence, we become like any other beast…acting on our selfish whims and desires.
You choose to live this way. This is why you say everything comes down to valuation. You are right, in that it CAN come down to valuation and personal desires and wants. But then you are choosing to work on a certain level…and behave like all animals.
When you strive to rise above this, choosing things BECAUSE they are good, choosing the UNSELFISH act over the selfish one, simply because it IS the unselfish act…then you are tapping into the “outside influence”. Then you are meeting your full potential as a human, and ceasing to be simply an animal. We call this “the divine” in all of us.
So I guess in a way, we are both right. We can choose to live by your code, which says “Do what you will harm ye none” or we can live by my code which says “Tap into the divine and rise above being an animal…don’t be a slave to your animal side…but rather embrace the part that separates you from the kangaroo”
The fact that we can make this choice…decide which moral code we want to embrace, proves my point. If the only way, the way of following our natures through brain power alone, was your way, then we couldn’t even be having this conversation.
Janet, yeah – there are things very commonly held to be virtues, the world over.
Doug: “I certainly acknowledge that you believe as you say you do, and that there are others like you, but stating an explanation without knowing is not good, IMO, same as for your Walmart clerk.”
Janet: We CAN know, using logic and reason.
Some things can be known, that way, but not all, and even there we make assumptions along the way.
Going back to what MK said:
I’m in Walmart and I ask a clerk where something is. They send me to the opposite end of the store (where it isn’t)
We agree that there’s no point in that. I see some people insisting on certain things due to their desire for there to be an “afterlife,” and/or a supreme being, etc., when it’s really assumptions on their part. There’s no proof they’re any more correct than the Walmart clerk.
Really, for a conscious entity, what can truly be KNOWN beyond the fact of its own consciousness?
Doug,
We’ve already agreed that there is no proof there, either way. You choosing NOT to believe in something makes as much sense as us choosing to believe there IS something.
But we do have logic. And as I pointed out, with no outside influence things work exactly the same way everytime. The sun comes up in the west, rain falls, oceans have tides and lions live in prides.
If the ocean suddenly started behaving erratically, we would assume, correctly that something from the outside was happening.
People behave erratically. There is no always as you have pointed out. So it stands to reason that we have a moral code due to an outside influence, as IT is the thing that is different. The common thread in humanity is that we are all different. The odd component is where we behave the same.
In animals the common thread is that they behave the same, and the odd component is that they behave differently.
When they break the norm, by behaving differently, it’s due to an outside influence. When we break the norm, by behaving similarly, it very well could be that it is due to an outside influence.
Oops, sorry, Janet, that “anon” above was me.
MK, abortion was not held to be murder in biblical times nor was it felt to be harmful to the community, and that’s what the Commandment is referring to. Written things do survive from those times, and it’s not only the Bible that shows that not all killing was prohibited. “Thou shalt not kill” is a corruption of the meaning, while the more correct versions of the Bible actually state it as “not murder.”
There certainly are differences among animals in the non-human world. Chimpanzees, other primates, elephants, dolphins, etc., have societies, moral codes, and they do give thought to what they do.
…..
“MK, I’m just as interested in knowing as you are, but I don’t have the need to pretend beyond what is demonstrable. etc. I fully admit there is much we do not know, unlike your clerk, and I also don’t make up explanations or go with other people’s made-up explanations.”
I don’t pretend Doug. I believe. To say I pretend is really condescending.
I meant no offense, and there is a whole range here, from the clerk just giving a wrong answer through people liking the idea of the “god of thunder” rather than admit they really just didn’t know what caused it.
…..
We are on equal footing here. We DO begin at the same place. We both begin with animals and humans are different. We are able to reason, they are not. We are able to make value judgments, they are not. We are able to make conscious choices, they are not.
Again, this is not true for all non-human animals.
Where we differ, is on the answer to the question why. You have no more valid reasons for believing that we are just wired that way then I do for believing that these abilities come from an outside source.
I disagree. While there is no proof of an outside source, we do see that genetics makes a difference, that men and women have inborn differences, etc. This is true within some other species too, not just for humans.
…….
You say I have no proof, and I say I have proof that we are indeed different. The fact that we are aware that we can make choice, think rationally, use language…IS proof that we are different. No great leap there.
We are certainly “different” than all other species on earth, but so are they. It’s not “magic” that has set us apart nor anything necessarily “divine,” it’s that our brains have a certain complexity and size, and that our bodies combined with our brains allow us to manipulate our environment.
…..
So you’re speculating that it is all in our head is no more reasonable than me speculating it is outside of our head. I believe mine has more validity, because if it were all inside our head, then we would be more universal in thought across the board and not just on moral issues.
MK, we’re too complex for it to work out that “we’d be more universal in thought..” We have a lot in common on some things, and in other areas diverge widely – again – no surprise given our brains’ complexity.
…..
You say we are universally in agreement on moral issues and I say, those that are out of sinc with the basics, do not prove that there is no moral code, but rather that there is. They just don’t follow it. If there were no exceptions, then we’d be back to the concept of instinct, and it WOULD be all in our heads. But it’s not, and we’re not, which shows that something “different” is happening.
No, I know darn well we’re not “universally in agreement on moral issues.” On some things there is near-universal agreement, but not all the way, and on some things there’s enormous disagreement. It’s not instinct, it’s people having commonality of desire to a point, whether it’s almost 100% or far below that.
……
It is these very exceptions that prove my point. If you were correct, then we could use the term “ALL”. But we can’t. We can only say most. We don’t say “Most wolves eat meat” or “Most cats chase mice” We say ALL wolves eat meat, and ALL cats chase mice. Here you’ll tell me an story about a cat you know that has a mouse friend, and I’ll say yes, but he was “taught/influenced” by an outside source to do so. He didn’t naturally befriend a mouse. He was introduced by an outside force to a pet… If you show me a wolve that doesn’t eat meat, I will say that he doesn’t live in the wild. An outside influence changed his diet.
I’m fine with “all wolves eat meat” and “all cats chase mice.” Good examples of genetically-affected behavior, but nothing to do with the moral realm.
…..
When we, as humans, think differently about what constitutes moral behavior, as I do from you, then I would say, it stands to reason that we are being influenced from an outside source, just like our cat.
Well, of course there are “outside influences,” i.e. our parents, peers, teachers, preachers, etc. Still, though, the ideas, even if gotten from others, are inside us, subjective to us as well as to the other holders.
Female genital mutilation on religious/societal grounds – some people believe it is moral, indeed that not doing so is immoral. Some of those people would have a different moral opinion if raised in the US, for example, and some of us who are now opposed to it would have a different moral opinion had we been raised elsewhere. Certainly, there are “outside” influences but it’s still a subjective deal.
……
In nature, other than humans, everything behaves according to it’s own nature unless influenced by something from outside.
The nature of primates, dolphins, etc., is to have societies and morals too. They, like us, are quite complex.
…..
I say, that it is logical to carry that over to humans.
I agree (we have our nature), and carry on….
This is why having sex sans marriage, killing our own children, committing adultery…is like ignoring that outside influence and instead reverting to animal like behavior. When we ignore that outside influence, we become like any other beast…acting on our selfish whims and desires.
No, the idea that “sex only in marriage is good” is a societal or personal construct, not any absolute, and it’s not like we “are animals” when we don’t go with it. It is our nature to have desires, and many people do wish for it only to be couples that have sex, married couples, etc., but this is a reflection of the fact that we often “want things to go certain ways.” If anything, I’d say it goes toward what some see as the female imperative, biologically, to seek a strong mate to protect her and her children, while for men it’s to impregnant as many females as possible, each with an eye toward continuing their genes.
……
You choose to live this way. This is why you say everything comes down to valuation. You are right, in that it CAN come down to valuation and personal desires and wants. But then you are choosing to work on a certain level…and behave like all animals.
I’m living the way everybody does – acting on my desires. This is true for everybody on earth, to the extent that we’re able. True for “saints and sinners,” for atheists, agnostics, and religious people of all types.
…..
When you strive to rise above this, choosing things BECAUSE they are good, choosing the UNSELFISH act over the selfish one, simply because it IS the unselfish act…then you are tapping into the “outside influence”. Then you are meeting your full potential as a human, and ceasing to be simply an animal. We call this “the divine” in all of us.
You are equating what you want with the “divine,” then, without there being proof of it. The self remains the motivation, regardless of how “selfish” or “unselfish” a given person will regard a given action. It’s generalizing from the particular when an individual or group says, in effect, “this is what is ‘good’ for all because we want it.”
…..
So I guess in a way, we are both right. We can choose to live by your code, which says “Do what you will harm ye none” or we can live by my code which says “Tap into the divine and rise above being an animal…don’t be a slave to your animal side…but rather embrace the part that separates you from the kangaroo”
Kangas rock. It’s all the same, whether we call it “divine” or just what’s wanted.
…..
The fact that we can make this choice…decide which moral code we want to embrace, proves my point. If the only way, the way of following our natures through brain power alone, was your way, then we couldn’t even be having this conversation.
It’s brain power that is allowing us to converse. I do think we have free will, and we exercise it, whether we say we’re affected from outside sources or not.
Doug,
There certainly are differences among animals in the non-human world. Chimpanzees, other primates, elephants, dolphins, etc., have societies, moral codes, and they do give thought to what they do.
I never said that they don’t “think”, I said they don’t reason. They do not reason out their moral code. And the moral code for all chimpanzees is the same, whether here or there.
They didn’t all sit around and discuss which would be better, to have one mate, or two. They do not ask each other what they would like for dinner!
MK, abortion was not held to be murder in biblical times nor was it felt to be harmful to the community, and that’s what the Commandment is referring to. Written things do survive from those times, and it’s not only the Bible that shows that not all killing was prohibited. “Thou shalt not kill” is a corruption of the meaning, while the more correct versions of the Bible actually state it as “not murder.”
I understand that, that’s why I clarified that murder was unjust killing. You’ll have to prove to me that abortion was thought to be morally okay past quickening. If the Jews had had access to ultrasounds and understood that the child was in there, alive and kicking before they could feel it, they would most likely have banned abortions before quickening.
I’m not arguing that written things outside of scripture exist, I’m asking you to show me where it says that abortion was acceptable…and more importantly the reasoning for the cutoff date of when it was. Read above paragraph.
No, I know darn well we’re not “universally in agreement on moral issues.” On some things there is near-universal agreement, but not all the way, and on some things there’s enormous disagreement. It’s not instinct, it’s people having commonality of desire to a point, whether it’s almost 100% or far below that.
You say it isn’t instinct and I say that if there is no outside force, and it is wired into us, in the sense that it is all chemicals and whatnot, IS instinct or as close as you can get to it. Either we are ruled BY our brains as you say, or we RULE our brains as I say.
I don’t make decisions based on what I value, I value what I decide to value.
I will say that I believe that if you make the decision not to let the outside force operate in you, then you will indeed operate the way you say you do.
. It’s all the same, whether we call it “divine” or just what’s wanted.
I agree that we can both be right (but only) in that we choose different paths, but I do not agree that it is all the same. Either we are both wrong or one of us is wrong…but the one thing we know is that we can’t both be “right”…
There either is a divine being and I am right and you are wrong, or we just are what we are and you are right and I am wrong, or there is no divine being, and we are not just what we are, but there is a third explanation unaccounted for.
But it is not possible for there to be a divine being that created us,AND that we were not created by a divine being.
I also want to address that you keep making this argument be about I say there is a God and you say there isn’t…which leads to I can’t prove it and you don’t have to prove a negative.
But that is not the real argument. I say there is a God. You say we just are. You say prove there is a God. I’m saying prove that we just are.
THis is what I mean by our views are equally valid, equally possible, and equally ridiculous.
Doug: 9:16: I’m living the way everybody does – acting on my desires. This is true for everybody on earth, to the extent that we’re able. True for “saints and sinners,” for atheists, agnostics, and religious people of all types.
Let’s look at that:
“to the extent we are able”
able = ability = What gives or takes away our ability? Whatever it is, it must be pretty strong to overpower our desires!
Answer = Laws? Conscience?
The legality of actions is often based on virtues/moral truth. A person’s inner conscience (what is right /wrong) is formed with virtue/moral truths in mind.
Conclusion: Desire alone doesn’t seem to apply to the important “stuff”.
Touche~ Janet!
Doug, oh Douuug……. What do you say to 12:46?
“to the extent we are able”
able = ability = What gives or takes away our ability? Whatever it is, it must be pretty strong to overpower our desires!
Janet, our desires are our motivation, but we can’t do everything and anything we want, and I was just noting that. While we can try for something, there’s no guarantee we’ll get it.
…..
Answer = Laws? Conscience?
There may be a law against a thing, but that doesn’t mean that a given person won’t desire things against the law. If one’s conscience is really against a thing, then he won’t want to do it. If his desire for the thing trumps all else, then he wouldn’t really be against it all that much, in the first place.
……
The legality of actions is often based on virtues/moral truth. A person’s inner conscience (what is right /wrong) is formed with virtue/moral truths in mind.
Conclusion: Desire alone doesn’t seem to apply to the important “stuff”.
The legality or illegality of actions depends on there being a sufficient opinion to legislate against them or not. Either there is sufficient desire to outlaw a thing, or not.
One might agree, or not, with the law.
They do not reason out their moral code. And the moral code for all chimpanzees is the same, whether here or there.
MK, from what I’ve seen about chimps, they do reason somewhat, and it’s not all the same for them.
…..
“No, I know darn well we’re not “universally in agreement on moral issues.” On some things there is near-universal agreement, but not all the way, and on some things there’s enormous disagreement. It’s not instinct, it’s people having commonality of desire to a point, whether it’s almost 100% or far below that.”
You say it isn’t instinct and I say that if there is no outside force, and it is wired into us, in the sense that it is all chemicals and whatnot, IS instinct or as close as you can get to it. Either we are ruled BY our brains as you say, or we RULE our brains as I say.
It’s not either/or. Genetics has input, as does our environment – it’s both “nature” and “nurture.”
…..
I don’t make decisions based on what I value, I value what I decide to value. I will say that I believe that if you make the decision not to let the outside force operate in you, then you will indeed operate the way you say you do.
It’s all the same thing. “Deciding to value” is valuing, and it all goes to desire, whether one says it comes from an outside source or not.
……
“It’s all the same, whether we call it “divine” or just what’s wanted.”
I agree that we can both be right (but only) in that we choose different paths, but I do not agree that it is all the same. Either we are both wrong or one of us is wrong…but the one thing we know is that we can’t both be “right”…
If we disagree on matters of physical fact or logic, then yes – we can’t both be right.
……
There either is a divine being and I am right and you are wrong, or we just are what we are and you are right and I am wrong, or there is no divine being, and we are not just what we are, but there is a third explanation unaccounted for.
Or there’s a whole slew of diving beings, etc….
…..
I also want to address that you keep making this argument be about I say there is a God and you say there isn’t…which leads to I can’t prove it and you don’t have to prove a negative. But that is not the real argument. I say there is a God. You say we just are. You say prove there is a God. I’m saying prove that we just are. This is what I mean by our views are equally valid, equally possible, and equally ridiculous.
I disagree – I am only going as far as the assumptions we both make, i.e. that we are separate consciousnesses with desires, etc. It’s not “equally ridiculous” to do that, as it is to maintain that there is an unprovable outside source for morality. I think the “we are” part is already agreed-upon, here. If anybody makes the assertion that there is “more than what we are,” then the burden of proof is on them.