There’s been a lot of blame thrown out over the Wuhan Virus, and honestly, a lot of it strikes me as people complaining that X,Y, or Z wasn’t able to predict with perfect accuracy what an unknown and unstudied virus would do and how it would affect people,
It seems clear that the Chinese have been less than honest about the disease and have been shipping faulty medical supplies around the world, so they probably deserve some blame.
The idiots who aren’t taking this seriously and who are engaging in risky behaviors, probably deserve some blame.
The question is, does Bill DiBlasio deserve s significant amount of blame for the spread in NYC?
As recently as March 13, he was publicly encouraging New Yorkers to go about their normal lives and not modify their behavior. After finally imposing some restrictions, he and his wife are shown violating them, as well as his much publicized trip to a health club.
I think it’s reasonable to conclude that Bill does deserve some degree of blame for the spread in NYC.
2 comments:
Your questions, such as they are:
Which worldview is True? Which worldview best explains the world we live in?
We can't state authoritatively that "THE NEO-AMISH worldview is factually True in every point and the traditional Southern Baptist worldview is factually false on every point."
Agreed?
We can recognize that there IS Truth out there and we believe that some elements of traditional Southern Baptist thought align with Truth as we understand it and other elements of traditional SB don't. That some elements of some Muslim thought align with Truth, as we understand it and that and other elements don't.
What else are you wanting?
Are you wanting to say that "The Christians in leadership at my reformed church that I attend understand Truth on 98% of matters about morality as an objective fact?" If so, how would you determine that?
I BELIEVE that a progressive, Christian, welcoming, grace and justice-oriented worldview best explains the world we live in.
YOU BELIEVE that a traditional Calvinist, conservative (or however you define your religious/philosophical worldview) best explains the world we live in.
Who gets to decide which is authoritatively right?
Craig's questions, continued...
It's clear that we live in a society that is significantly post religious. Other worldviews compete to fill the role that religion has traditionally filled on society.
If one worldview is True, then does it really matter if that worldview limits, excludes, or doesn't foster "common ground"?
One has to FIRST determine if "one worldview is True," doesn't one? Isn't this skipping a pretty vital step?
IF you can't demonstrate authoritatively and objectively that your one worldview is True, and the extremist Muslims can't demonstrate THEIR one worldview is True, then isn't it vital that, in the diverse world, finding some way to find some common ground vital?
So, yes, it matters. How could it not?
Craig's questions:
If one worldview is True, does the Truth of that worldview depend of the ability of individuals or groups of people to fully understand or prove that Truth to skeptics?
No. BUT, for the purpose of getting along in a diverse world, finding common ground does matter.
Isn't Truth, by it's very nature exclusive, and counter to "common ground"?
I do not think so. Not so long as not everyone recognizes your "truth" or that you have the authority to declare what is and isn't true.
Look, IF I hold the position that the philosophy of the personal auto is, taken in total, a net negative and thus, we should strive to end the philosophy of the personal auto... and I am FACTUALLY, OBJECTIVELY CORRECT in that belief AND YET, no one else agreed with me, then I have to find some common ground with people who would reject my "authority" to declare that I am speaking the Truth on this matter.
Common ground always matters, it seems to me.
Craig:
Is Truth somehow diminished or less True because some subset of people don't believe it or deny it?
Nope.
It seems that the very basis of all of these discussions comes down to "Does Truth exist?"
I disagree that the very basis of all these discussions comes down to "Does Truth exist?"
I believe that the basis of all these discussions comes down to, "Does anyone have the objective, authoritative right to say that their Truths about moral questions are exclusively, objectively right?" and the answer to that is, No. And thus, finding common ground matters, EVEN THOUGH an objective Truth exists.
Does that answer your questions?
March 29, 2020 at 11:02 AM Delete
I'm starting to think that It's more important to Dan that he clings tightly to his hunches about morality, and common ground, than it is to engage in discussion about the Truth and whether or not out worldviews are founded on The Truth.
Post a Comment