14 Sep 06
5 edits
Originally posted by RistarHowever, I believe we can safely say that the universe exists.
I agree with you in saying that you cannot point to the universe and say "there it is" in the same way that you could a tree or a rock. Indeed many parts of the universe are closed to our observation. However, I believe we can safely say that the universe exists.
As to origin and its necessity: would it be your assertion that the universe had a point of o f there is unity and diversity in the first cause.
Further thoughts?
Regards,
R
The point is, what do you mean when you say that? I point to some penguins, and I say: “Do those penguins exist?” (indicating the relevant penguins with a gesture). Or I can say: “Does that group of penguins exist?” Do I mean anything different by substituting the word ‘group’ for the wave of my hand?
What makes those particular penguins a “group”? That they have some relationship to one another—e.g., they are standing on the same ice flow. “Group” is just a handy designation identifying those penguins and their relationships. Like “universe,” it is a descriptive designation, and has no separate “substance” of itself. If one insists on saying that the group is an “effect,” then it is an effect that is internally explained by the elements and their relationships.
Now suppose I say: “I wonder how those penguins got on that ice flow.” To say: “I wonder how that group of penguins got there” is not to say anything different. If I explain how each of the penguins came to that ice flow, and you then ask: “Yes, but how did the ‘group’ get on the ice flow?” you are asking a nonsensical question. (I am not a scientist, but this may be akin to Scotty’s point about it making no sense to ask what there was “before” the big bang.)
Once I have explained each of the elements in the group and their relationships, I have explained what makes them a group. I have explained why I can use the designation “group”—why I can conceptually aggregate the individual elements.
You can readily see how this analogy breaks down and is totally inadequate to the task at hand (just as was your domino example). That may be a problem inherent in all such attempt to "analogize" the universe.
And if you do believe that it had a point of origin, what was responsible for its origin?
I don’t know if the universe is eternal, or if it had a beginning; or if the universe as we know it had what from our perspective seems a beginning, but is just a “point” in an infinite rhythm of expansion contraction. I will take the scientist’s best current explanation as just that—the apparent best current explanation (noting that because one explanation is the “majority” viewpoint, does not prevent those scientists from recognizing possibilities in competing theories). I really don’t have to have a “belief” about it.
All our knowledge about causal relationships is confined to being within the universe—we have no “view from elsewhere,” even if there were an elsewhere from which to have a view.
Unless you also posit an unseen element to the universe, i.e. a metaphysical one...
I allowed for this possibility in my first post—so long as you understand that some aspect of the universe that is closed to us, does not render such an aspect in any way “supernatural.” An accidental first cause (by “accidental” here I strictly mean, happened by chance) within the universe itself would still have been a first cause—and one that started a thereafter nonrandom process—but one that has no explanation.
Again, there may be some questions for which we have no answers—particularly the “why” questions. Now, you may argue that such a circumstance would put us in a sticky place in terms of trying to figure some other things out—such as the moral discussion in this thread, which I am not entering—but the fact that such a circumstance may lead to unwanted and undesirable consequences has no effect on its truth or falsity.
As for the actual word "universe," it would probably be best described in terms of its roots, i.e. "unity" and "diversity."
I like that. Another way of saying that the diversity “coheres.”
But you can only have true unity in diversity if there is unity and diversity in the first cause.
I’m not sure that that’s a coherent sentence (though it is grammatical—this is the area where Wittgenstein warns us against becoming bewitched by language). What do you mean by “in”? I notice here that you speak of a “first cause” again, assuming it substantively. This seems to be essentially what you’re saying—
(1) A sufficient causal explanation of the way things are is a total explanation.
(2) A total explanation includes a necessary being.
(3) There is such a total explanation.
(4) Therefore, there is a necessary being.
The conclusion is “begged” in the premises.
___________________________
If you’re going to assume (a) a necessary being that (b) is “beyond” the cosmos in order (c) to explain the coherence of the cosmos [note the similar word-play here as with your “uni-verse” example], then you might as well go ahead and assume a supernatural God at the get-go, and let that be your “axiomatic base,” rather than extending your explanatory chain beyond that. The cosmological argument fails, on several grounds.
What you need to do is argue at least—
I. That there is a “God;” [axiom?]
II. That your conception of that God is coherent (and I am not convinced that the supernatural being posited by western theism is coherent, though I am not ready to take a stand on that yet);
III. That such a God is accessible in any way to human cognition.
The last one goes to your comment about “divine revelation” (it might also go to an assumption* that Jesus as the Christ was the incarnate God; I am using the word “revelation” broadly here, such that the incarnation would be included). The question is, how could a God who is totally transcendent to the universe in which we exist, and by which even our consciousness is conditioned (again, we have no “view from elsewhere” ), extend a communication that would be at all intelligible to our conditioned brains? A “wholly other” being (to use Karl Barth’s term) would by definition be wholly incognito. This was a question examined by Emil Brunner; Barth totally rejected Brunner’s conclusions.
Thus far, you have really simply assumed all three of the above (in one of your first posts, you asserted that a necessary being must be God). And you may need to simply do that in order to avoid both (a) the common God-revelation circularity, and (b) the problem of establishing the coherency of your conception of a “wholly other” being.
Of course, anyone is free to simply not accept your assumptive base, without being subject to charges of unreasonableness. One could, for example, take the monist route (which has some problems of its own).
* I do not mean that word “assumption” pejoratively, simply descriptively.
14 Sep 06
1 edit
You can readily see how this analogy breaks down and is totally inadequate to the task at hand (just as was your domino example). That may be a problem inherent in all such attempt to "analogize" the universe.
I realize that the domino example was quite simple, even simplistic, but it is designed to point to a larger truth. To say that the universe is an object or a group of objects is not really germane to the discussion. The fact that it is exists is.
I will take the scientist’s best current explanation as just that—the apparent best current explanation (noting that because one explanation is the “majority” viewpoint, does not prevent those scientists from recognizing possibilities in competing theories).
It is true that science, by definition, is in a state of continual change as new discoveries come to light. However, it is also true that the ideas of cause and effect cannot be denied. Speaking of something which has no beginning and yet has an end is incoherent. If, however, you choose to discount the idea of a point of origin altogether, that also can make no sense because expansion and contraction costs energy. Tracing this back, there would have to be an infinite amount of energy in the infinite past, an idea which defies the laws of logic as well as those of physics.
All our knowledge about causal relationships is confined to being within the universe—we have no “view from elsewhere,” even if there were an elsewhere from which to have a view.
While I would agree that we do not possess infinite knowledge as human beings, and thus are not transcendent ourselves, we may achieve semi-transcendence by acknowledging the laws of logic; these are a good example of things which are absolute, non-material, and real. These transcend the universe itself and can thus be considered a view from “outside” as it allows us to talk about the nature of the cosmos.
I allowed for this possibility in my first post—so long as you understand that some aspect of the universe that is closed to us, does not render such an aspect in any way “supernatural.”
Perhaps a definition to the term is called for here. Supernatural in this context would refer to that which transcends the natural. Such things have the possibility to be “uncaused” and therefore are more than adequate to the task of being a first cause. Matter and energy, space and time, the building blocks of the universe, are finite and relative to one another. They cannot serve as a first cause, only as lesser causes.
but the fact that such a circumstance may lead to unwanted and undesirable consequences has no effect on its truth or falsity.
Correct, sir! If something is true, it remains so regardless of one’s preference. As to the “why” of things, you are also correct in asserting that physical science plays no part in these matters.
I like that. Another way of saying that the diversity “coheres.”
Me too. I thought that was neat when I first heard it.
(1) A sufficient causal explanation of the way things is a total explanation.
(2) A total explanation includes a necessary being.
(3) There is such a total explanation.
(4) Therefore, there is a necessary being.
I would rather say my reasoning proceeds thusly. See what you think.
1. Relativism is inadequate to explain causality as it is self-referencing for all objects in or attributes of the universe.
2. A point of origin is a necessary thing to have for any finite, relative object (or group).
3. To posit an infinite regression of causation as an ultimate answer to existence is incoherent.
4. A first cause which is eternal, absolute, and uncaused itself must serve as the starting point of any complex web of relationships or linear progression.
5. Such a first cause must transcend the limits of the universe, be beyond the grasp of the laws of physics, and therefore “supernatural.”
Here, I think a definition of “universe” is called for. When you use the word, are you referring to the sum total of all matter, energy, space and time? Or are you referring to something even beyond that, e.g. the nothingness preceding the origin of matter, etc.?
What you need to do is argue at least—
I. That there is a “God;” [axiom?]
II. That your conception of that God is coherent (and I am not convinced that the supernatural being posited by western theism is coherent, though I am not ready to take a stand on that yet);
III. That such a God is accessible in any way to human cognition.
I. A reasonable request. Absolute truth cannot exist unless God, i.e. a supreme first cause, exists. But absolute truth does, in fact exist. For example, the law of non-contradiction, a self-evident truth, is undeniable.
II. I’m not sure what part of the (presumably Christian) concept of God you have problems with, but perhaps you can elaborate on that in another thread. The Bible does not define God as “wholly other” but as Trinitarian, complete in Himself, not needing humanity to exist. Unity and diversity in the Trinity (thus an adequate first cause). Three in person, one in essence, not a contradiction but aspects of His nature.
III. Once again the Bible posits that man is created in God’s image, which is to say, he possesses some of the same attributes as God but in a finite way. Man can love, he can think, he is a free moral agent. However, God is sufficiently “other” that, as you say, under normal circumstances, we could not know him (though we might get an inkling). He would have to reveal Himself (which is what was done in the person of Christ).
In any event, I fear I may have strayed off the topic. The topic is good and evil as absolutes. We can tie the discussion of the universe to the laws of logic and our philosophical underpinnings by the following:
1. If you believe that time plus matter plus chance has created your brain, then truth as an absolute category no longer exists.
2. If truth as an absolute does not exist how do you know it is true that time plus matter plus chance has created your brain?
That’s a somewhat high-level description, but I hope it helps.
* I do not mean that word “assumption” pejoratively, simply descriptively.
But of course. 🙂 I’m glad we can discuss this topic sensibly, believe me.
Fond regards,
R
14 Sep 06
Originally posted by RistarBut of course. I’m glad we can discuss this topic sensibly, believe me.
[b]You can readily see how this analogy breaks down and is totally inadequate to the task at hand (just as was your domino example). That may be a problem inherent in all such attempt to "analogize" the universe.
I realize that the domino example was quite simple, even simplistic, but it is designed to point to a larger truth. To say that the univers ...[text shortened]... ut of course. 🙂 I’m glad we can discuss this topic sensibly, believe me.
Fond regards,
R[/b]
Fond regards,
Same here!
I’m going to make just a short response because (1) I don’t have more time right now, and (b) there are some points you make that I have to consider further—please assume that what I do not respond to falls in that category—(besides, as you note, we have wandered from the specific topic of the thread, though not, I think, in an irrelevant way).
Perhaps a definition to the term is called for here. Supernatural in this context would refer to that which transcends the natural.
Good point: that is how I understand it as well, which why I sometimes use the phrase “supernatural category.” My point was that something may be transcendent to our cognitive capacities, while still being part of the natural category.
3. To posit an infinite regression of causation as an ultimate answer to existence is incoherent.
I’m not convinced it’s “incoherent.” Except, however, that since causation is a feature of the cosmos, and since we have no access to understanding any other kind of causation (or even conceive of such), to talk of causation transcendent to the cosmos may be incoherent. Ah! I didn’t read you clearly: “as an ultimate answer to existence”—I might agree with you there, as I am not at all certain that such an “ultimate answer” is possible, and that has been a key point in my discussion.
I have another problem, which is still in nascent stages in my brain—we keeping talking in terms of a causal chain, and I wonder how much of our thinking is limited by this kind of “linearity.” A causal “complex” may not be linear, may have feedback loops, etc. (perhaps like so-called “chaos theory” ).
4. A first cause which is eternal, absolute, and uncaused itself must serve as the starting point of any complex web of relationships or linear progression.
I’m hurrying too much—I now note your use of “complex web.” I’ll simply say that I don’t think you have shown this: can you put it into an inference that is non-question-begging?
Here, I think a definition of “universe” is called for. When you use the word, are you referring to the sum total of all matter, energy, space and time? Or are you referring to something even beyond that, e.g. the nothingness preceding the origin of matter, etc.?
Yes, that is how I am using “universe” (do we need to include fields and relationships, or is that understood as part of dimensionality?). I have no idea what you mean by “nothingness.” That, to me, is an incoherent term if applied outside the dimensionality of the universe (e.g., to say “There is nothing there,” requires an understanding of what that “there” refers to in order to be coherent).
I. A reasonable request. Absolute truth cannot exist unless God, i.e. a supreme first cause, exists. But absolute truth does, in fact exist. For example, the law of non-contradiction, a self-evident truth, is undeniable.
I am not arguing that there are no absolutes within the framework of the universe. I am arguing that we do not have any access to causes beyond the universe; I am not arguing that metaphysical speculation about such is necessarily illogical—a metaphysical system should certainly be internally consistent, and I suspect that yours is—if you drop the cosmological argument as a “proof of God,” and simply start with God as an axiom.
II. I’m not sure what part of the (presumably Christian) concept of God you have problems with, but perhaps you can elaborate on that in another thread. The Bible does not define God as “wholly other” but as Trinitarian, complete in Himself, not needing humanity to exist. Unity and diversity in the Trinity (thus an adequate first cause). Three in person, one in essence, not a contradiction but aspects of His nature.
I’m thinking in terms of such phrases as omnipotent, omniscient, a limitless being, and the like—which are not, as you point out, biblical terms.
I would think that “wholly other” refers to what I have called the “supernatural category.”
III. Once again the Bible posits that man is created in God’s image, which is to say, he possesses some of the same attributes as God but in a finite way.
I think that was the starting point for Brunner’s talk about a “point of contact” (I always thought Brunner was right, and Barth wrong).
My basic point is that if there is an “ultimate answer” or a “total explanation,” that does not mean that it is accessible to us. That is why I agree that a necessary supernatural being would remain incognito without some kind of “divine revelation.” I think that the cosmological argument is weak, even if it can be stated in a form without logical flaw. Because we don’t have “a view from elsewhere (or from nowhere),” we cannot access information beyond the bounds of the universe; therefore, without the additional assumption of revelation, the cosmological argument says hardly anything at all, even if it can be said logically.
14 Sep 06
Originally posted by RistarPeople have their right to their individual opinions, it's society that binds them through law.
I'm not sure how that follows. Perhaps if I ask a clarifying question, playing the Devil's advocate: If there is no ultimate meaning other than what you give to yourself, if my opinion is just as good as yours, then who is to say you or I may not do as we wish? My peers, perhaps, or society?
To draw a quote from Wikipedia, "Moral relativists hold that no ...[text shortened]... distinguish right from wrong purely on the basis of my own personal preference, may I not?
Defining law is a process that emanates from the government and is not necessarily a definition of who is right or who is wrong, in terms of morality, but whose opinions will have juridical strength.
If we assume a democracy, then it is through voting that individual morality is aggregated (more or less correctly) to form juridical bodies.
As for your wikipedia example, you again mix truth value (true or false) with moral value (good or bad). They are not one and the same and should be separated.
And just because morality is relative doesn't mean that it is not fruitful to discuss it, since one may evaluate each other's reasons for defending a certain moral standard and reposition ourselves if necessary.
14 Sep 06
Originally posted by RistarI think I can agree with that. Evil exists at least as, although perhaps only as, a concept. Personally, as a "thing" I do not believe evil exists, and that "good" and "bad" are arbitrary labels on non-arbitrary value judgements. As I have endeavoured to show, such value judgements are not unique to humans, and can be explained in evolutionary terms.
Absolutely. I agree with your last post entirely. An infinite regression, given what we know, cannot be sustained, as you say. Those hypothetical dominoes remain just that: hypothetical.
And without life... well what's the point? 😉
I guess I would have to say that this thread has moved beyond the mere existence of good and evil. At this point, I th ...[text shortened]... on the board when I've had some sleep and some orange juice. 😉
Very fond regards,
R
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
14 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzHow do you personally differentiate between 'right' and 'wrong'?
I think I can agree with that. Evil exists at least as, although perhaps only as, a concept. Personally, as a "thing" I do not believe evil exists, and that "good" and "bad" are arbitrary labels on non-arbitrary value judgements. As I have endeavoured to show, such value judgements are not unique to humans, and can be explained in evolutionary terms.
Would it be the same way as differentiating between 'red' and 'green' perhaps?
14 Sep 06
Originally posted by PalynkaI agree with you that any number of opinions may be espoused by any number of people; we may deduce that without acute mental exhaustion. 😉
People have their right to their individual opinions, it's society that binds them through law.
Defining law is a process that emanates from the government and is not necessarily a definition of who is right or who is wrong, in terms of morality, but whose opinions will have juridical strength.
If we assume a democracy, then it is through voting that i ...[text shortened]... other's reasons for defending a certain moral standard and reposition ourselves if necessary.
However, in a nihilistic worldview no law holds me. I scoff at society and do exactly as I please. Society may punish me, but what do I care? I am only matter and energy after all. Societies mean nothing to a nihilist for he recognizes them for what they are: barren and empty, devoid of any weight or significance. Someday the universe will end and humanity shall be utterly forgotten. "We have wiped away the entire horizon," sad Nietzche. Who then can aspire to anything lovely or worthwhile?
In that sense, I think nihilism is, perhaps, one of the most honest worldviews in existence.
This may seem insane, and I believe it is. That and more: wicked and morally reprehensible. The problem is that without a point of reference you cannot denounce anything and have no concrete basis for society in the first place. All is trivia. All is vanity in the end, a noble lie at best, a pernicious influence at worst. Is this possibility a good or a bad one to have happen to humanity?
I honestly fail to see how anything can be above mere triviality in the final analysis unless there is an epistemological base on which to begin discussion. The fact one doubts everything gets in one's way when one wants to denounce anything. My question is twofold. First, is it good to have all morals be relative (not pluralism, that is different from moral relativism), i.e. can we ever hope to have any real social justice or nobility on a purely relativistic framework? And what is more, is relativism true, i.e. is everything relative? Blanket statements like that must be faced as nonsense. I must admit that I am mystified by your position when you say I cannot make a moral judgment about the the veracity of various moral judgments.
Even by refusing to make a moral judgment, you have, in effect, made one. Is that good or bad? Goebbels had lots of falsehoods to say, all based ultimately on the nihilistic worldview of Hitler, a la Nietzche. Were his falsehoods good or bad? And why?
We in the west are daring the lines and we actually think we can get by without the espousing of an absolute moral law. History cries out against this view. The blood of millions cry out against it. Melodramatic? I daresay the survivors of Auschwitz would not believe that.
Please forgive me if I seem emotional at this point, but one has only to read the history books to see that pure materialistic and relativistic views of the universe have shed more blood that politicized religion has ever done. And with good reason; materialism and relativism (coalescing ideas to be sure) can logically work out into monstrous behavior.
Please believe me that I do not for one moment believe that all espousers of relativism are Stalins and Mussolinis in waiting. I'm just saying that irreligion has the possibility to produce such men and women by the mere fact of its outlook. By the same token Christ would never have endorsed the crusades, the inquisition, or other similar cases of politicized and detestable pseudo-Christianity. These horrific events stand in contradiction to His teachings, thus Christianity cannot work out into such things. That is one of the reasons why I believe it is a superior system of moral conduct (among other things).
Ultimately the pursuit of real and hard truth, distasteful though it may be, must be our ultimate goal and highest aspiration. Otherwise you will live pragamtacally for moment. Unfortunately, as history has shown, pragmatism is not very pragmatic.
14 Sep 06
Originally posted by amannionWell said, sir. Existential application is the only way to make a worldview count for anything. Only that way can we truly make a difference.
We can debate the philosophical basis of our social and cultural viewpoints until the cows come home, but the reality is that we live in the world; we live in a society; and we follow a particular moral framework to live our lives.
14 Sep 06
Originally posted by dj2beckerI personally differentiate right and wrong based upon the moral framework developed by me over the last 26 years. This framework is based upon three key elements; 1) my parents' teaching of right and wrong, (2) societal preferences about right and wrong, (3) my own thinking about what I personally think is morally permissable. For example, whilst society does not ban homosexuality it is generally looked down upon. My own thinking is that, whilst I am not gay, it is not morally wrong to be gay - people should have that choice.
How do you personally differentiate between 'right' and 'wrong'?
Would it be the same way as differentiating between 'red' and 'green' perhaps?
14 Sep 06
2 edits
Originally posted by RistarSo many emotionally charged examples... If you are discussing with me, I ask you to please leave them at the door. It also helps not to disperse and focus on the subject.
I agree with you that any number of opinions may be espoused by any number of people; we may deduce that without acute mental exhaustion. 😉
However, in a nihilistic worldview no law holds me. I scoff at society and do exactly as I please. Society may punish me, but what do I care? I am only matter and energy after all. Societies mean nothing to a nihi mtacally for moment. Unfortunately, as history has shown, pragmatism is not very pragmatic.
You ask me two questions.
The first one (if it's good to have all morals be relative) is essentially meaningless. Either they are relative or they are not. The law of non-contradiction that you so frequently quote applies with brute force. It is simply the way they are. Justice and nobility are moral judgements and therefore they would exist in most frameworks, just that they might not be coincident.
The second one ("is relativism true, i.e. is everything relative?" ) contains a false association. Relativism, in this context, applies only to morality so that doesn't mean that 'everything' is relative. Only morality.
Again, you confuse the position of moral relativists. Moral relativists DO make moral judgements, only that they judge them by their standards which they do not see as absolute, only as preferences. I repeat, I'm a staunch defender of Human Rights and yet, I'm a relativist. If you find that contradictory then you have not understood Moral Relativism.
15 Sep 06
Originally posted by PalynkaEmotions are part of the whole being, sir. We are not simply intellect. Let us attempt to engage the whole being. That does not mean that we must descend into insults, of course; merely that we involve ourselves to the fullest. To be emotionally invested is only human and to be expected. As long as we do not allow ourselves to be carried away by either intellectualism or by emotionalism, we may keep a proper and legitimate set of sensibilities. If one of us sees a child starving, we must not merely see them as an object of analysis, we must see them as a human being worthy of our mercy. When we see human monsters, we must act with indignation. However, these can all be accomplished with a full understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of our feelings and the deeds we observe, comment on, and act upon.
So many emotionally charged examples... If you are discussing with me, I ask you to please leave them at the door. It also helps not to disperse and focus on the subject.
You ask me two questions.
The first one (if it's good to have all morals be relative) is essentially meaningless. Either they are relative or they are not. The law of non-contradictio ...[text shortened]... elativist. If you find that contradictory then you have not understood Moral Relativism.
If I seemed harsh, be comforted. I do not often become so. However, after seeing the videos made of Auschwitz and reading the stories of sickness, torture, and mass murder; when I read of how the hair of gassed women was shorn off and woven into gunny sacks, when I see castrated young boys experimented on by Joseph Mengele, can I remain unmoved emotionally? Also, may I not acknowledge the consequences of nihilism intellectually at the same moment? Once again, we engage the whole being.
Emotions can blur the focus or sharpen it, depending on whether or not they are excercised properly.
Also, please refer to my disclaimer in my previous post. Once again, I make no claims that all relativists are monsters. Nor am I saying that you cannot be a humanitarian relativist (I am glad you are a humanitarian, by the way, and not the alternative). These are not mutually exclusive. The key here is that relativism can logically lead to a "saint" or "serpent," whereas a benevolent and transcendant ethic can only yield the "saint."
My apologies if I expressed myself badly. I was indeed referring to moral relativism. And since the idea of morality is not monolithic, we are not critiquing "morality" as a whole, we are only commenting on moral systems. Thus we are comparing multiple sets of ideas. By saying "all systems of morality are relative to my preference or yours," you are, in effect, establishing a moral system, one that attempts to embrace and/or explain other moral systems (a "meta-ethic" if you will). Having thus established a moral ethic, it now comments itself to death. What if my preferences are not the same as yours? What if they contradict?
If that is so, the relative "meta-ethic" is self-defeating because makes itself out to be relative, meaning that it isn't always true (or at least "true for you and not for me"😉. I hope that clears things up.
Regards,
R
15 Sep 06
2 edits
Originally posted by vistesdOnce again, my friend, many thanks for the stimulating conversation and for making me think as well. I think we have both accomplished good things in the course of this conversation.
[b]But of course. I’m glad we can discuss this topic sensibly, believe me.
Fond regards,
Same here!
I’m going to make just a short response because (1) I don’t have more time right now, and (b) there are some points you make that I have to consider further—please assume that what I do not respond to falls in that category—(besides, as you not ...[text shortened]... lation, the cosmological argument says hardly anything at all, even if it can be said logically.[/b]
Just a quick clarifying comment or three, so as not to take up too much more time.
* Terms such as "omnipotent" and "omniscient" are not, as you say, explicitly stated, but implied. In truth, this is the function of theology (which has often been called the 'Queen of the Sciences'😉, to draw these inferences.
* "Wholly other" is a neo-orthodox term meaning "totally unlike mankind." This is not the historical view of God, who made Man in His image, i.e. sharing certain traits with the creator.
* As far as the question-begging, would you prefer the sentence, "Everything that begins to exist has a cause?"
Regards,
R
15 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by RistarNo, you cannot acknowledge them. I could cite many other monstrosities done under religion and make blanket statements about the consequences of belief in an absolutist moral standard. It's just not intellectually honest.
when I see castrated young boys experimented on by Joseph Mengele, can I remain unmoved emotionally? Also, may I not acknowledge the consequences of nihilism intellectually at the same moment?
Edit - The key here is that relativism can logically lead to a "saint" or "serpent," whereas a benevolent and transcendant ethic can only yield the "saint.".
The same applies here, even benevolent and transcendant ethics can lead to the 'serpent'. History is again full of examples.