Sunday, October 19, 2014
Questions for Dan
As a bit of a different tack this time, instead of answering the endless list of questions asked by Dan in a given conversation, I’m going to go through the questions I’ve asked (which remain unanswered). At some point I will answer all of Dan’s questions, but for now the scales are out of balance. So here we go.
Questions from the discussion thread at John’s starting with my comments from October 16th at 5:59 through the end of the thread.
1. So, do you believe in a divine author?
2. Are you suggesting that in the instances where the Bible records “rules” (10 commandments, the various commandments of Jesus), that those rules are not valid, or not to be obeyed simply because you have decided that the Bible isn’t a “rule book”?
3. Can you provide any evidence that anyone actually subscribes to this “The Bible is a rule book” theory of yours
4. Would it not be accurate to say that while the Bible may not be a “rule book” in the modern sense of the term that is a book that contains rules?
5. I’d be curious to see what you would suggest “God breathed” is a metaphor of. (While this is technically not structured as a question it is an invitation to provide information and as such is included here.)
6. You emphatically pronounced that babies are innocent. By what authority do you make this pronouncement? By what standard do you judge?
7. Are you able to perfectly determine the innocence or guilt of everyone?
8. Please show me the place where baby and innocent are synonyms?
9. Are you really denying that God judges guilt and innocence?
10. Who else would you suggest is capable of ultimate judgment?
11. You’ve already tried, and failed. So who?
To be fair, Dan did respond to what I have listed as questions 6 &7, however, I’m not impressed with his response and will keep them here in case there is more detail forthcoming.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
30 comments:
Hm. Just now noticing you've been posting comments about/questions addressed to me here at your blog. Just because I have a minute, I'll address some of this here and now.
Craig's questions (any return questions for Craig, I'll place in bold print to make them easier to find):
1. So, do you believe in a divine author?
? Of the various books of the Bible? That is, are you asking if I think God "wrote" or "authored" even one book of the Christian Bible? No, of course God didn't. God made no such claims, nor do the books' authors make that claim.
Why would I make a claim about these books that the authors don't make, that the text does not demand?
++++++++
2. Are you suggesting that in the instances where the Bible records “rules” (10 commandments, the various commandments of Jesus), that those rules are not valid, or not to be obeyed simply because you have decided that the Bible isn’t a “rule book”?
I'm stating that the text of, for instance, the ten commandments state specifically that these are God's rules for ancient Israel.
For instance, the ten commandments begin (Ex. 20), "I am the Lord your God, who brought YOU out of EGYPT, out of the land of slavery."
Here, God is speaking directly and specifically to ancient Israel.
Or look at one of the many pages of ancient Israelite rules found in Leviticus, chapter 18, for instance, begins...
"The Lord said to Moses, “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘I am the Lord your God. You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan..."
Very specifically to ancient Israel in their specific context.
If the text does not demand a "universal rulings" understanding of these rules, why would I adopt or insist on it?
Beyond that, we have the whole question-begging matter to deal with... Is this text from God/inspired by God? In what sense?
Is it intended to represent a literally factual representation of the situation described and what God did or didn't say?
OR is it better understood as an epic or mythic story with perhaps some factual history mixed in with some metaphor and imagery?
These are reasonable questions that need to be addressed first, we can't just assume that a traditional understanding of the text is correct simply because "tradition..."
+++++++++
more...
3. Can you provide any evidence that anyone actually subscribes to this “The Bible is a rule book” theory of yours
You all keep saying, "We know homosexuality is wrong because "the Bible..."" or, "We know that the Bible has rules for us because "the Bible...""
Am I mistaken? Do you not think that the "utlimate decider" or "final word" of morality comes from the Bible?
Certainly at least some of your comrades have used those sorts of terminology in explaining their moral positions.
Do you, Craig, believe the Bible is our "sole source" for gaining understanding about God and morality?
According to the Christian Research Institute, Sola Sciptura is defined: "Protestants mean that Scripture alone is the primary and absolute source for all doctrine and practice (faith and morals). "
Do you believe that the Bible is the "primary and absolute source for all doctrine and practice (faith and morals)"?
+++++++
4. Would it not be accurate to say that while the Bible may not be a “rule book” in the modern sense of the term that is a book that contains rules?
Absolutely, there are rules given to/understood by ancient Israel, there are Paul's rules to ancient Christians in their specific time and place, there are the Pharisees rules that they tried to push on people in that time and place.
Never said otherwise.
What I disagree with is treating the Bible as a rule book or a rulings book, where we go to get a final ruling on what is and isn't moral.
Why would I do that when the bible does not make any claim to be that kind of book?
++++++++++
more...
5. I’d be curious to see what you would suggest “God breathed” is a metaphor of. (While this is technically not structured as a question it is an invitation to provide information and as such is included here.)
In context of the ONE PLACE in the Bible where this term appears, it appears to me to be saying that these various ancient texts were inspired by God. I have no proof that this was the author's intent. Do you have proof that Paul/the author intended that it must be taken to mean "writ by God..."?
No, of course you don't. We have our opinions, neither of which is provable.
+++++++++
6. You emphatically pronounced that babies are innocent. By what authority do you make this pronouncement? By what standard do you judge?
In the English language, innocent is defined a certain way.
"free from guilt or sin especially through lack of knowledge of evil"
Babies ARE free from guilt, having not had the opportunity to do anything wrong or commit any sin. Therefore, by the standard English definition of the term "innocent," babies ARE innocent, by definition.
Are you arguing that a newborn has committed some offense, crime or sin?
Do you recognize how silly/insane that sounds?
By what standard do I judge? Words. Words have meaning. If the meaning of innocent is free from crime, sin or offense, then by THAT standard, babies are innocent, having committed no crime, sin or offense.
If we set aside the meanings of words, Craig, we can no longer communicate. If you say, "Airplanes can't fly!" and the definition of airplane is a machine that can fly, then yes, by definition, a working airplance CAN fly. If you mean something other than "airplane" when you say Airplane, well then the confusion is on you.
But the standard by which I understand/make the claim that airplanes can fly is just simple English language.
++++++++
7. Are you able to perfectly determine the innocence or guilt of everyone?
No.
++++++++
8. Please show me the place where baby and innocent are synonyms?
Innocent, in English, means "free from guilt or sin especially through lack of knowledge of evil" AND babies (at the very least, newborns) are free from guilt or sin, having had no opportunity yet to be guilty of anything.
I didn't say they are synonyms, I said that a baby is, by definition, innocent.
Do you have ANY evidence that a newborn is guilty of something??
++++++++
9. Are you really denying that God judges guilt and innocence?
No.
++++++++
10. Who else would you suggest is capable of ultimate judgment?
We all are capable of judgments, at least to the degree that our flawed failed humanity will allow. Not perfect judgment, but judgment/assessing of the data at hand. Our humans capable of perfect or "ultimate" judgment? No. Never said so.
+++++++++
11. You’ve already tried, and failed. So who?
I don't know what this means.
Your questions answered again, here. Every one of them.
Will you answer mine (just the ones here in bold will suffice)?
To further answer your second question...
2. Are you suggesting that in the instances where the Bible records “rules” (10 commandments, the various commandments of Jesus), that those rules are not valid, or not to be obeyed simply because you have decided that the Bible isn’t a “rule book”?
I'm not saying that the rules weren't valid at the time they were passed on. I'm saying that the appearance of a rule some place in the Bible (don't grow hair on the side of your head... if two guys lay together, kill them... when you invade the enemy, kill them all except for the virgin girls, whom you can take home to be your "brides...") does not, by default, make it a universally true rule, applicable in all times and places.
This is a point which you almost certainly agree with, since you presumably wouldn't marry a virgin girl whose family you just killed in wartime.
So, we don't obey ANY of the rules in the Bible simply because "they're in the Bible." Rather, we use our God-given reasoning and innate moral nature to judge what is and isn't right here, now, for us.
Is it immoral to drive 45 mph in a school zone? to drink a sip of alcohol and then drive? To put your parents in a nursing home? To kill a soldier in wartime? To target a place where civilians live in wartime? To charge interest on loans?
...We decide these using our God-given reasoning and moral sense, as best we can. We don't say "The bible doesn't say no, so Yes, we can do it," Nor do we say, "the Bible says 'No, don't charge interest' so we can't..." We decide using the resources we have at hand.
Do you disagree? Based on what?
"I'm not saying that the rules weren't valid at the time they were passed on. I'm saying that the appearance of a rule some place in the Bible (don't grow hair on the side of your head... if two guys lay together, kill them... when you invade the enemy, kill them all except for the virgin girls, whom you can take home to be your "brides...") does not, by default, make it a universally true rule, applicable in all times and places."
1. You keep saying that the Bible isn't a rule book, yet it is a book that contains rules.
2. You keep misrepresenting the opinions of those who disagree with you.
3. If you can't accurately express the views of those you are in a conversation with, maybe it would be better to ask for confirmation, rather than make unfounded assumptions.
"Rather, we use our God-given reasoning and innate moral nature to judge what is and isn't right here, now, for us."
By this standard, it is possible for me to use my reason and innate moral nature to decide that it is right for me to pretty much do anything I want. All one has to do is to look at the news to see examples of people living according to exactly the standard you describe.
Now, you could be saying that our "God-given reasoning and innate moral nature" are always right and that we always choose to follow them, and that we cannot misinterpret them, unfortunately reality destroys that.
You could be saying that YOU can use YOUR reason, and YOUR innate moral nature a to determine what YOU consider to be the correct decision for YOU, but that doesn't really help society. Because, you have no standing to assert that the things that YOUR innate moral nature determines are right of anyone but YOU.
You could be saying that YOUR innate moral nature and Reason are so amazing that they allow YOU to determine right and wrong for others.
You do appear to be ignoring the many Biblical warnings about not trusting our feelings, in favor of elevating Reason and innate moral nature to some sort of transcendent status.
Or, you should be saying that there is no transcendent moral standard and that everything is subject to our Reason and innate moral nature, which as you have pointed out change over time.
Or you could be saying that you have some actual support for your claim that we are NOT supposed to look to the scriptures for moral guidance, but rather to rely exclusively on our Reason and innate moral nature.
Or you could be assuming that there is such a thing as an innate moral nature, and that it is always correct.
Any support for whichever of those comes closest to your opinion would go a long way toward making your hunch a credible alternative.
Craig...
By this standard, it is possible for me to use my reason and innate moral nature to decide that it is right for me to pretty much do anything I want.
Indeed, if someone had evil intents that they wished to justify, they certainly could. I, for one, don't believe that you have evil intents you wish to justify and that, therefore, you would not use your reasoning to justify "anything you want..." but rather, you'd earnestly and honestly seek to do the good and right. Me, too.
But certainly, our moral reasoning is only as good and noble and the man or woman is employing it, at least to some degree.
Is it your thinking that most people (all people) are basically evil hedonists who use their reasoning to justify any act - no matter how awful? That has not been my experience.
I, for one, trust you more than that, Craig. Hopefully, the same grace is extended in every direction.
Craig...
You do appear to be ignoring the many Biblical warnings about not trusting our feelings, in favor of elevating Reason and innate moral nature to some sort of transcendent status.
Not at all. I'm not talking about "feelings." I'm talking about reason. Now certainly, our human reasoning is fallible and we certainly make mistakes. We are even prone to do so when we read the Bible, n'est ce pas?
But for the record, what "biblical warnings" are there about "not trusting our feelings..."?
There are, I suspect you might suggest, verses like this one...
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?
And some of us use our reasoning to say, "This means that every human is intentionally evil and determined to do wrong above all things, you can't trust any people because we're all sick and twisted!" but the evidence does not support that rather cynical reading, so I'd suggest their reasoning (or perhaps their training/cultural teachings) was mistaken, perhaps because they were trained to interpret the Bible in an overly-literal manner.
Others might use their reasoning to say, "Well, I don't accept any of the Bible's teachings, so this means nothing to me..." and that, too, would seem to be a rather cynical approach to the text.
Others might use their reasoning to say, "Well, certainly the evidence shows that their is some sense in this, if you don't take it too literally. I mean, the evidence shows that people everywhere generally strive fairly hard to do the right thing and be moral people. At the same time, we all have weak moments and we all find it fairly easy to justify doing all kinds of things - even wrong things - so we can't just say 'anything my heart wants to do is a good thing...'"
I'd suggest the latter is the most rational and the most biblically adept view, taking into counsel all the teachings of the Bible and not just cherry picked verses.
So, I do not ignore biblical warnings. I take them for what they're worth, and weigh them and strive to make sense of them in light of all known evidence, not just in light of a certain cultural preference in how to read the texts or certain human doctrines that insist there's one right way to understand the text and THIS human or THAT human (or denomination, etc) are the ones who have the completely right understanding.
Does that clear up your misunderstanding?
Craig...
you should be saying that there is no transcendent moral standard and that everything is subject to our Reason and innate moral nature, which as you have pointed out change over time.
Depends on what you mean by "transcendent moral standard." If you're suggesting that the Bible suggests that the Bible is The One Transcendent Moral Standard, by which we can know all right and wrong, I would point out that factually, the Bible makes no such claim and rationally, such a claim just wouldn't hold up to sound reasoning.
For one thing, the bible doesn't make the claim.
Secondly, neither God nor any other objective Judge has not made that claim.
Thirdly, if neither the Bible, nor God make the claim, why would anyone insist upon it? Because some humans insist that is the right theory? We'd need more than that.
I know of no one source that has any rational claim to be the One Transcendent Moral Standard. If you do, by all means, present your evidence for that claim. But note: "I REALLY think so, and so do all the people in my tradition who happen to agree with me... and there's a BIG BUNCH of us who all agree!" is not hard evidence.
Craig...
Or you could be saying that you have some actual support for your claim that we are NOT supposed to look to the scriptures for moral guidance, but rather to rely exclusively on our Reason and innate moral nature.
I didn't make that claim. You are factually mistaken.
Or you could be assuming that there is such a thing as an innate moral nature, and that it is always correct.
We are moral people. Humanity has always had opinions about right and wrong, good and evil. We have not always agreed, but we have always held opinions about right and wrong, ie, morality.
Any support for whichever of those comes closest to your opinion would go a long way toward making your hunch a credible alternative.
I would simply point to all of humanity to see the evidence. Do you need more evidence than all of human history? Or do you disagree? Do you have evidence that humanity, in general, has not always held views about right and wrong, ie, morality? If so, please present your evidence.
"Is it your thinking that most people (all people) are basically evil hedonists who use their reasoning to justify any act - no matter how awful?"
Nope. Just fallen sinful people.
"Not at all. I'm not talking about "feelings." I'm talking about reason."
Yet, you've made it clear that Reason is not an objective standard. Are you suggesting that it is possible to separate Reason from feelings consistently?
"And some of us use our reasoning to say, "This means that every human is intentionally evil and determined to do wrong above all things..."
Please. oh please, provide me with even one quote of anyone who is reasonably respected saying anything even close to this. Please.
"I mean, the evidence shows that people everywhere generally strive fairly hard to do the right thing and be moral people."
Please, show me this evidence.
"If you're suggesting that the Bible suggests that the Bible is The One Transcendent Moral Standard, by which we can know all right and wrong, I would point out that factually, the Bible makes no such claim and rationally, such a claim just wouldn't hold up to sound reasoning."
I've never suggested anything of the sort.
"Secondly, neither God nor any other objective Judge has not made that claim."
Proof, please.
BTW. Nice dodge on the transcendent moral standard issue. You've essentially admitted that morality is fluid and changes over time.
"We are moral people."
In what sense? Do we make the "right" moral choice 51% of the time? But, you just said morality changes, so does that mean we just do what we want and at some point it becomes moral? Can you prove that "We are moral people"?
"Do you need more evidence than all of human history?"
Yes, let's look at all of human history.
The French Revolution bloodbaths in the name of reason.
Hitler, 12,000,000 innocent people killed (not including the actual casualties from battle)
Hirohito, The rape of Nanking (unprovoked). Torturing, starving, killing, experimenting of captives.
Stalin,Mao,Pol Pot, etc. Conservatively 20,000,000 dead bodies.
Sub Saharan Africa, genocide, ethnic cleansing.
Much of the Islamic world today. FGM, Honor killings, terrorism, slavery, beheading of apostates.
I could go on, but you get the point. Your "human history" is full of people you call "moral" (presuming that you meant the "we" in "we are moral" to mean humanity in general)engaging in unprovoked acts of brutality on a truly global scale.
Don't get me wrong. This is not to say that every single person in evil, far from it,there are a vast number of folks who have given their time, treasure, and even their lives to fight against the real evil that does exist.
So, can the "We are moral" crap. It's a bunch of B.S. that even a cursory look at human history will demonstrate.
How many people do you know who are actively evil, Craig? How many people do you know who will kill, maim, abuse and steal?
What percentage of the whole of people you know is that?
Unless you have really awful friends and acquaintances, the percentage of truly bad people you know has to be pretty low. 10%? 5%? 1%?
It would be 1% or less, for me.
Craig, I'm not saying that people don't get pushed into doing bad things. Hell, there's a bunch of Americans who will defend the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki... the deliberate targeting of countless innocent civilians. Yes, people DO engage in bad behavior. I'm not arguing that we don't.
But, day to day, life to life, most people I know ARE moral, trying generally to do the right thing, regretting it when they fail.
Is this not the case for you? For your family and friends? Are YOU an evil, immoral person, Craig?
I think I know you well enough to say, no, you're not even close to being an immoral person. You, Craig, are a good, moral man, doing much good work and, I have NO doubt, doing it for good and pure motives. Not perfectly, not always, but generally, yes, Craig, I would defend you against anyone who would call you immoral.
Tell me if I'm mistaken.
"I mean, the evidence shows that people everywhere generally strive fairly hard to do the right thing and be moral people."
Please, show me this evidence.
I call on you to testify to provide a sampling. We can compare that to my sampling (WAY lower than 1%, I'm not sure that I know anyone who is actively immoral in any way that is visible.
Perhaps you're using some other definition of immoral than I am?
English definition of Immoral:
violating moral principles;
not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics;
Synonyms
bad,
wicked,
dissolute,
dissipated,
profligate,
depraved...
Beyond that, here is what I said...
"I mean, the evidence shows that people everywhere generally strive fairly hard to do the right thing and be moral people."
With the exception of some mentally ill people, everyone (or nearly everyone) I know strives fairly hard to do the right thing. Maybe I'm an anomaly, but I doubt it.
Even those I know who I would say engage in immoral behavior are almost always doing it for reasons of morality and they just have their moral compass skewed (in my opinion).
"Unless you have really awful friends and acquaintances, the percentage of truly bad people you know has to be pretty low. 10%? 5%? 1%? It would be 1% or less, for me."
So, you are prepared to pass judgement on the entire 7 billion folks on earth, based on the few people you know. Rational, I think not.
"But, day to day, life to life, most people I know ARE moral,..."
So what, unless you are seriously suggesting that you can extrapolate some grand vision based on the people you know.
"Is this not the case for you? For your family and friends? Are YOU an evil, immoral person, Craig?"
I'm not trying to support a universal claim of fact, simply based on my personal experience.
"Tell me if I'm mistaken."
I don't know about mistaken. I do know that you didn't really address that issue or defend your claim of fact.
"I mean, the evidence shows that people everywhere generally strive fairly hard to do the right thing and be moral people."
You clearly state that "evidence shows", yet you provide no evidence. If "evidence shows" something then it shouldn't be that hard to provide the evidence you reference.
"Secondly, neither God nor any other objective Judge has not made that claim."
Another claim of fact, yet no proof.
"We are moral people."
Another claim of fact, with no evidence or proof.
"Do you need more evidence than all of human history?"
You mean "all of human history" except the massive things I pointed out. How about some actual evidence that proves your point?
"I call on you to testify to provide a sampling. We can compare that to my sampling (WAY lower than 1%, I'm not sure that I know anyone who is actively immoral in any way that is visible."
Dan, let's be clear. You made a claim of fact, you have repeatedly told me that you back up claims of fact with proof. Except in this case, when you provide no evidence or proof, yet expect me to provide evidence of something I never claimed.
Evidence/Proof.
"With the exception of some mentally ill people, everyone (or nearly everyone) I know strives fairly hard to do the right thing. Maybe I'm an anomaly, but I doubt it."
This not evidence, it's not proof. It's barely an anecdote.
I've provide specific examples that suggest that your claim is, at best,naive. But all you've got is "Well everyone I know seems pretty nice." or some such vacuous crap.
Of all of your many failures to provide evidence and answer questions, this one may be the most egregious.
"I mean, the evidence shows that people everywhere generally strive fairly hard to do the right thing and be moral people."
You mean like this evidence?
The French Revolution bloodbaths in the name of reason.
Hitler, 12,000,000 innocent people killed (not including the actual casualties from battle)
Hirohito, The rape of Nanking (unprovoked). Torturing, starving, killing, experimenting of captives.
Stalin,Mao,Pol Pot, etc. Conservatively 20,000,000 dead bodies.
Sub Saharan Africa, genocide, ethnic cleansing.
Much of the Islamic world today. FGM, Honor killings, terrorism, slavery, beheading of apostates.
So, how about some actual evidence to back up your claims?
You are pulling out isolated incidents with no evidence that the people involved were not trying to do the right thing.
Color me unimpressed.
Again, I ask for you to testify: Are the majority of people you know evil, with evil intents, by and large? Or are they decent folks striving to do the right thing?
Ball's in your court, brudda.
The ball is in your court, Craig (in case you don't understand why), because you are making the rather sweeping claim that most people are evil and not trying to do the right thing, as a general rule.
Or are you making that claim?
You see, when you flatly state...
can the "We are moral" crap. It's a bunch of B.S. that even a cursory look at human history will demonstrate.
It sounds like you are making the claim that "we are moral as human beings is a claim that is crap, it is BS." IF that is the claim you are making, and IF you are making the rather extraordinary charge that most people are NOT moral, generally striving to do the right thing, then you are the one making the claim that is rather hard to believe, the onus is on you to support it.
If, on the other hand, that is not your claim, and it's NOT "BS" to say that people are generally moral, then we would appear to agree.
You go.
You see, Craig, when you appear to make the claim that most people are not generally moral, not generally trying to do the right thing (this was my claim that you have called "crap..."), then provide isolated events like the French Revolution, atrocities in Rwanda or the bombing of cities full of citizens in WWII (I know, I know, you didn't cite "our" crimes, on the crimes of others), you are effectively proving that people CAN engage in acts of atrocities. That is a claim that I do not dispute at all, and indeed, your evidence does provide support for THAT claim.
But I'm not making the claim that humans are not capable of committing atrocities, am I?
I'm making the rational claim that, by all evidence that I see, generally speaking, people are moral and striving to do the right thing.
Do you have any evidence to counter that claim of mine?
Let's stick to the points being argued.
"You are pulling out isolated incidents with no evidence that the people involved were not trying to do the right thing."
I fully admit that the people behind every one of the "isolated incidents" I listed thought that they were doing the right thing. Seriously how do you send millions of innocent people to their deaths, by accident.
"Again, I ask for you to testify:"
I will gladly testify as soon as you provide proof of your claims of fact.
"...because you are making the rather sweeping claim that most people are evil and not trying to do the right thing, as a general rule."
No, I am not making that claim. You are claiming (without evidence) that I am making that claim. The problem is that you have made claims, and not proven them. So, until you do, I'll just point out your errors.
"Or are you making that claim?"
No, you can tell by the fact that I've never made that claim. You can also tell by the fact that when you tried to pull this crap earlier I specifically corrected you. You can also tell by the fact that when you try to put words in my mouth, you are usually wrong.
"It sounds like you are making the claim that "we are moral as human beings is a claim that is crap,..."
No, I am pointing out that you making a sweeping general statement of fact, without being able to support it, is crap. If you can offer proof of your claim (not just extrapolating from your friends), then we can move on. But until then, no proof=crap.
"But I'm not making the claim that humans are not capable of committing atrocities, am I?"
No you are making the claim that all humans are moral, and that human history bears out your claim. Unfortunately, simply making a claim is not proving a fact.
"I'm making the rational claim that, by all evidence that I see, generally speaking, people are moral and striving to do the right thing."
Yet, you have provide no evidence to prove your specific claim. "we are moral". You have moved from "we are moral" to "generally speaking, people are moral and striving to do the right thing.". Unless you are prepared to retract your earlier statement as being in error, you need to provide proof.
"Do you have any evidence to counter that claim of mine?"
Until you provide actual evidence for your claim, I see no reason to take it seriously.
"Let's stick to the points being argued."
You're seriously going to tell me what I can or can not say at my own blog?
"we are moral"
This was your claim.
"we"
I assume that you are using this term to generically refer to all of humanity throughout history.
So, you are prepared to prove your claim that all people through out human history are moral?
"are"
Not "are trying to be", not "basically good", not any sort of qualification. Just "are". Evidence that you can support your claim that all humans in the history of the earth "are" moral.
"moral"
Moral based on what?
Is there an objective standard of morality?
Some Muslims consider honor killings to be moral, are they right?
Please, provide evidence of this universal standard and that "we" "are" meeting that standard.
FYI, don't think that substituting this "well most people generally sort of try to be kind of close to making the right decisions".
You made the claim, prove it or retract it.
By all evidence I have seen, people generally try to do the right thing. They fail, to be sure. You do, I do, we all do, at times, but we are all generally trying to be moral by all evidence that I have seen.
I don't know how to be any more clear than that.
If you have evidence that I have not seen, feel free to present it. ALL I can testify to is what I personally have seen (read about, heard of, etc).
If you DON'T think that most people are trying to be moral, trying to do the right thing, then by all means, present your evidence.
Otherwise, I would have to suppose we can agree.
No more games, friend. Make a claim and stand by it or back down and quit arguing just for the sake of arguing. It's tiresome, Craig.
"By all evidence I have seen, people generally try to do the right thing."
So, you don;t have evidence to support your claim.
"If you have evidence that I have not seen, feel free to present it."
You are the one making claims of fact here, why should I be providing evidence?
I pointed out the flaws of your original claim, that a glance at human history proves your point.
Again, when you make the claim of fact, it is incumbent upon you to provide evidence.
f you really want to extrapolate your impressions of what the small amount of people you know do on to the billions of people who have lived throughout human history, fine. Just don't pretend it's evidence.
"If you DON'T think that most people are trying to be moral, trying to do the right thing,..."
What I think isn't the issue here. You made a specific claim ("we are moral"), and didn't provide evidence. Now you have changed your claim ("most people are trying to do..."), without acknowledging the fact that your initial claim is false and unproven. Instead you choose to put your hope on your impressions of your friends extrapolates out the the entire human race. Perhaps if you were more concerned about providing proof for your claims of fact, and less worried about putting words in my mouth it would be helpful. If would also be helpful, if you would at least acknowledge that you are moving the goal posts and that your first claim was indefensible.
"Make a claim and stand by it or back down and quit arguing just for the sake of arguing."
OK, I'm waiting for you to do what you demand of me.
The FACTS are;
I have not made a claim, hence I have nothing to stand by.
You have made several claims, yet provide no evidence (beyond a weak attempt to extrapolate your personal perceptions onto the entirety of human history)
You asserting that I have made a claim, is not proof that I have made a claim.
As much as you would prefer it otherwise, your own words (quoted multiple times) show that you have made claims of fact.
You have said that when you make claims of fact, you provide proof. Yet, you have made claims of fact. You have not provided proof.
So.
"Make a claim and stand by it or back down and quit arguing just for the sake of arguing."
If you won't do, how can you demand it from anyone else?
Craig...
"By all evidence I have seen, people generally try to do the right thing."
So, you don;t have evidence to support your claim.
"By all evidence I have seen, people generally try to do the right thing."
If you believe other than ALL the evidence I have seen, by all means, say so. If not, we agree.
If you disagree and have other evidence, by all means, present it.
All I am saying is the quite clear, "By all evidence I have seen, people generally try to do the right thing."
Hopefully you understand that.
"By all evidence I have seen, people generally try to do the right thing."
Problem #1. You have seen people do what you perceive to be the right thing.
Problem #2. You have yet to demonstrate that there is objectively a "right thing".
Problem #3. Your original claim was "we are moral".
Problem #4. You haven't proven your original claim.
Problem #5. You have instead, offered your personal observations about something completely different from your original claim.
Problem #6. Your new claim is incredibly subjective and unprovable.
"If you believe other than ALL the evidence I have seen,..."
Except you haven't provided any evidence. Either to support your original claim, or to support your new claim. I realize you consider "My personal limited observations about a small group of people to extrapolate to the entirety of human history." (or something similar) to be evidence. Unfortunately, it's not.
"All I am saying is the quite clear,..."
Don't you mean "All I am saying (now)...". Since you clearly said something different earlier.
"By all evidence I have seen, people generally try to do the right thing."
Again, beyond your limited personal experience, please provide evidence.
How do you know what people generally try, anyway?
"Hopefully you understand that."
I do understand, that you have made an unsupported claim of fact, and that all you can offer as evidence of your new position is an extrapolation based on your personal observations.
Craig...
Your original claim was "we are moral".
My original claim, in context...
We are moral people. Humanity has always had opinions about right and wrong, good and evil. We have not always agreed, but we have always held opinions about right and wrong, ie, morality.
Is it your opinion that I am mistaken, and that people have NOT always held opinions about right and wrong? Where is your evidence for that? My evidence is that I'm unaware of any cultures that have not had moral values ("don't kill..." "don't take what is not yours..." "the earth belongs to no one..." etc what culture/people have NOT had moral values?) Do you have some data to support the notion that some peoples were valueless? By all means, present it. I'm unaware of it.
You failing to present any evidence to disprove my claim, I'm stuck with believing it until someone disproves it.
By the way, it's going on four weeks now and your source over at hip and thigh has yet to address my questions, as I predicted would be the case. He has hardly answered any of my questions, not directly.
Alas.
"We are moral people."
"...people are moral..."
It is a fact that you haven't proven that either of these statements statement are objectively true.
"..and striving to do the right thing."
You have not provided evidence that this statement is objectively true for all of humanity.
You did offer this; ""Do you need more evidence than all of human history?"
So, I point out some notable exceptions to your "proof". You then dismiss the deaths of 10's of millions of people over lengthy periods of time as "isolated incidents".
So, now we have this:
"We have not always agreed, but we have always held opinions about right and wrong, ie, morality."
It seems that your point is that because "morality" is not an objective standard, and that since Hitler believed that he was doing the right thing, that this somehow supports your earlier statements of fact (quoted above)?
So, you have made claims and not provided support. You have attempted to suggest that I have made claims that I haven't, and demanded that I defend the words you put in my mouth. You demand evidence of claims I haven't made.
All the while, you don;t provide what you demand, and don't answer questions.
"By the way, it's going on four weeks now and your source over at hip and thigh has yet to address my questions, as I predicted would be the case. He has hardly answered any of my questions, not directly."
I'm sure that has nothing to do with the fact that you started in on the slavery thing, because it couldn't possibly have anything to do with humble grace filled Dan, could it?
Perhaps, you should ask him if he plans to do so. You know, politely.
Craig, since you are unable to understand my words, I'm finished with this conversation.
I am sorry you are unable to understand my words, written in English by a reasonably intelligent fellow who no one else (without an agenda, at least) has trouble understanding, but that is the end problem.
Good luck, brother.
"Craig, since you are unable to understand my words, I'm finished with this conversation."
The problem is that I do understand your words.
The problem is that you won't provide the proof to back up your claims of fact.
So, when asked to provide evidence to back up your claims, you choose to leave.
"We are moral people."
"...people are moral..."
I'm going to make this real simple.
The above quotes are, in fact, your words.
I presume that, since you wrote the words, you believe them to be statements of fact. Or accurate.
You can have as long as you like to demonstrate objectively using facts. That the two statements are objectively correct.
Or, you can retract or modify them to communicate explicitly what you currently mean, and explain why you made the above statements of they didn't accurately reflect your views.
Appeals to personal anecdotes do not count as evidence.
Once you deal with your statements of fact, then the conversation can move on.
"Please cite some research to support that claim. It could be, I just have not seen any research to say one way or the other."
"Do you know this thing that you’re stating as a fact, or is this just your best guess, not based on any research?"
I've left in the punctuation errors so that I can maintain the integrity of the quotes.
"We are moral people."
"...people are moral..."
I'm still waiting.
Post a Comment