"Because
my religion says..." is a very limiting way to
try to define morality. That's fine for the 30% of the world that agrees
with the particular tenets of your particular version of your
particular religion, but it doesn't fit everyone, nor does the appeal
have much of a way to unify everyone.
Additionally, you have humans (traditionally throughout most of history, powerful men) deciding, "This is
what I think God calls moral..." and humans are famously oftentimes
mistaken about what the gods believe.
After
all, of the dozens of other gods and religions in the world, most of us
no doubt don't place any credence in what these other religions teach
to
be moral, do we? We can just agree that OUR God's rules/teachings are
right... and even then, "we" in "our" group regularly disagree with one
another on many rules even within our group.
On what rationed consistent basis would we choose one religious group
(or, some subsets of one religious group, since religions often don't
agree with each other even within one religion) to be the authorities on
what is and isn't moral?
Appeals
to one particular subset of one particular religion is very limiting
and would perforce exclude many others (as opposed to help us find
common ground)."
I believe that the above excerpt lies at the very heart of Dan's problems with an objective moral code that can be known by humans.
I'm going to start be questioning the assumption that the goal of morality is to "find common ground". This is one of those assumptions we often see from Dan that he treats as "reality" without actually establishing any basis to do so.
Of course every religion is "limiting" and "excludes", those are pretty much goven when we compare religions. For example, if someone has grown up as a christian and decides to leave the Church to believe something else (or nothing), there's nothing that would stop someone from doing that. (Data tracking the rise of the "nones" demonstrates that frequently) Yet, on a regular basis ex Muslims are put to death for leaving Islam. So, yes there are things about religions that are mutually exclusive. Again, that's pretty much a given.
So, given that reality, where does that leave us.
It seems as though the question that needs to be answered is not "Do religions disagree and exclude others?", that's clearly the case. It also seems that "Is finding "common ground" the ultimate goal in life or religion?" isn't particularly helpful either. Undeniably, it's possible to find some level of "common ground" even between religions that are diametrically opposed to each other. But that's just how adults operate. So, what is the real underlying question that might actually help?
How about this?
Can there be a worldview that is most closely aligns with what is True?
Can there be a worldview that best explains the world we live in?
If we start with these basic questions, and lay some additional groundwork, we can then ask the the following questions.
Which worldview is True? Which worldview best explains the world we live in?
But absent agreement that it's possible that such a worldview exists, then any further questions are pointless.
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"?
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?
Isn't Truth, by it's very nature exclusive, and counter to "common ground"?
Is Truth somehow diminished or less True because some subset of people don't believe it or deny it?
It seems that the very basis of all of these discussions comes down to "Does Truth exist?"
We're not going to get sidetracked by anything else at this point. Because IF there is a Truth, and IF there is a worldview that most closely aligns with the Truth, then does it really matter of that Truth and that worldview exclude those whose beliefs don't align with the Truth?
For example, I think that we can all agree that the earth is round is a statement that is True. Yet there are people who make convincing, well reasoned arguments arguing for a flat earth. Why should those who acknowledge the Truth be concerned with those who exclude themselves by choosing not to acknowledge that Truth?
94 comments:
The entire quote was an attempt by Dan to dodge the initial question of how he determines an objective morality...or as I prefer saying, a morality that exists regardless of whether or not we do. I believe Scripture is that objective authoritative source because it is the revealed Word of the Creator, from Whom morality comes. I believe there is far more non-religious evidence for the reliability of Scripture than there is to the contrary, and than there is for most any other ancient text known to man. That some might not put any stock into it is irrelevant to whether or not it actually is the ultimate source for understanding morality.
Finding common ground with those who reject Scripture...such as Dan...leaves out a whole lot of morality in the end. What is left is not morality, but consensus opinion on what behaviors...or simply what concepts...should constitute morality. It's a matter of what's fashionable and is subject to change with the times...because it's all subjective in the first place.
This is not to say that it's the best for which we can hope in this fallen world of myriad opinions, nor that we shouldn't agree to such consensus for the sake of getting along as best we can. But it's not morality nor an example of an objective basis for determining what is or isn't moral.
Art,
Part of the problem is that Dan starts with certain assumptions which he perceives to be true and therefore beyond needing to be proven.
Those preconceptions include his assertions that various things “can’t” be proven and that there certain things that can’t be know with any certainty.
Unfortunately he doesn’t start be asking what is True. He acknowledges that some sort of Truth exists, but that it’s absolutely impossible for us to know that Truth.
Ultimately the questions are. 1) What is True?2) What worldview most closely aligns with Truth?
Essentially Dan’s argument is simply a utilitarian moral code. It’s trying to come up with some absolutely minimal construct that can be mostly agreed on in order to facilitate different societies living in proximity. The problem is that not every society even makes a pretense of living out this construct. Which raises the question, How fundamental is this construct, if large numbers of societies live as it this construct doesn’t exist? What good does it do to say you live by one code, yet actually live by another.
Finally, because this construct is based on utility, rather that the intrinsic value of humans, it really doesn’t go very far.
I think it's really worse than that insofar as within a single society, not everyone adheres to what he thinks is "self-evidently" true, say nothing of different societies near or far. Your question #1 pushes against his theories and preferences. He just resists or lets it just sit there unacknowledged, much less answered.
Craig... "It seems as though the question that needs to be answered is not "Do religions disagree and exclude others?"
Yes, most if not all philosophies disagree with others and often times that involves exclusion. So what? I'm not disagreeing with that reality.
Dan,
I haven’t read all of your comments through, but I posted them because that’s what I do. However, the topic of this post is very limited and I’m going to edit, delete, or move anything of yours that’s off topic.
1. I understand that you’re making a distinction without a difference. Essentially your arguing the difference between a goal and the goal. It’s such a minor point, that it seems stupid to make an issue of.
“Look, it seems like we're having two different conversations, here.”
No, we’re not. We’re having one specific and limited conversation here. Any other conversation will be had somewhere else.
“One (yours in your post here) is that there are some Truths that are better than others and that some Truths (and sets of morality) will clash and disagree and even "exclude others..." That is without a doubt, true and factual.”
No, we are not discussing some world of multiple truths. I’m asking specific, and so far unanswered, questions about The Truth. We’re not doing a comparison and contrast of competing Truths. If you want to make the case that there are multiple Truths, do it somewhere else.
“Of course I think some Truths and morality are better than others. I disagree with you all conservatives) regularly because I think the Truths and morals that I'm advocating are stronger, better, more ideal than yours and that, in some cases, your truths and morals are just bad/wrong.”
I’ll thank you for confirming that you’re essentially marking an argument from a utilitarian perspective, which your attempting to support by alleging a consensus.
However, that’s not the topic of this post.
If you want to comment on this topic in this post, you can start by answering the questions and staying on topic.
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?
“Agreed?”
No, it doesn’t answer the question I asked. Although it does underscore my opinion that you deny the ability to know what’s True.
“What else are you wanting?”
Well, I was hoping for an answer to the questions I asked.
You asked THIS question: Which worldview is True?
Is it the case that you think there is ONE WORLDVIEW that is the MOST TRUE of all of the worldviews out there?
Are you suggesting that there is ONE worldview that is objectively true?
...and demonstrably so?
If so, WHICH WORLDVIEW, praytell, is objectively True? And you're basing that on... what?
"One has to FIRST determine if "one worldview is True," doesn't one? Isn't this skipping a pretty vital step?"
It is a pretty vital step. Of course actually reading the question as written is probably an even more vital step. But you chose not to do that. Perhaps, read the question and try again.
"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."
Speaking of jumping ahead, this is a great example. If you can't agree that an objective Truth exists, and that some worldview most closely aligns with that Truth, then this comment is pointless. I'm trying to start at the very beginning, and you keep wanting to run ahead and justify your worldview, before anything else.
"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."
Thank you, you finally answered a question simply and directly.
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."
You realize you just contradicted your previous answer. If the Truth is that 2+2=4, that Truth automatically excludes 5,6,7,8, or 9 from being True as the answer to the question.
Based on your response.
Is Truth only True when it's recognized as True? Again, you've jumped ahead. This isn't about me "declaring" something to be True, it's about acknowledging the existence OF Truth. But, you're jumping ahead.
Look, I realize that you're obsessed with the notion of "common ground", but that's not what we're talking about here. Until it can be established that there is Truth, and IF there is a worldview that most closely expresses what is True, the notion of "common ground" isn't part of this conversation. At least not yet.
"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?""
That's great. Are you suggesting that Truth doesn't matter? That "common ground" based on something that is not True, is more valuable than Truth? Please explain what is more foundational than Truth?
"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?""
1. If this statement isn't True, then who the hell cares what you believe?
2. Your obsession with multiple "Truths" is concerning.
3. Your obsession with steering the topic of this post away from the topic is annoying.
4. Do you understand that given your earlier answer, that the notion of "their Truths" is simply another way to say opinion?
5. Do you realize that if "my Truth" is X and "your Truth" is Y, that they (according to the law of non contradiction) CANNOT be "Truths".?
"And thus, finding common ground matters, EVEN THOUGH an objective Truth exists."
And yet, "finding common ground" isn't the topic under discussion in this post.
Is common ground more important that Truth?
Is a "common ground" valid if it contradicts the Truth.
"Does that answer your questions?"
No, (with the noted exception), it simply raises more questions.
Craig... No, it doesn’t answer the question I asked. Although it does underscore my opinion that you deny the ability to know what’s True.
It IS true that I do not believe that I can state authoritatively that THE WORLDVIEW SHARED BY MOST JEFF STREET BAPTIST MEMBERS IS OBJECTIVELY TRUE. And I sure as heck don't believe that YOU can state authoritatively that your worldview is objectively true.
It's not an "opinion" that I deny the ability to say that ONE WORLDVIEW that exists somewhere in the world today is THE ONE RIGHT WORLDVIEW and it is RIGHT in every regards. Hell yes, I deny that sort of power. I ain't God.
Do you think YOU have that power? Why do you state it as if this is a bad thing?
On the other hand, I SURE AS GOD IS GOOD DO NOT DENY MY ABILITY TO KNOW WHAT'S TRUE.
It is True that YOU DO NOT AUTHORITATIVELY SPEAK FOR GOD. You can't say i deny my ability to know what's True. I do it all the time. I know it WELL ENOUGH, if not authoritatively or objectively.
JUST THE SAME AS YOU.
So, if you're speaking of me denying the god-like power to state perfectly authoritatively what is and isn't objectively True, then YES, you are right. The same as you.
BUT, if you're saying I don't recognize Truth, in general or that I deny my ability to know what's true, generally, then that is a God-damned lie (as all lies are, in my opinion).
Which is it?
Craig... If you can't agree that an objective Truth exists
GOOD God almighty! YES!
I AGREE THAT OBJECTIVE TRUTH EXISTS.
I AGREE THAT THERE IS OBJECTIVE TRUTH.
I HAVE ALWAYS STATED THAT I BELIEVE IN OBJECTIVE TRUTH!
I HAVE NEVER STATED THAT THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE TRUTH!
Craig, do you NOW understand what my position is about objective truth? Why do you keep framing this question as if my view on objective truth is a mystery when I've never not been clear about it?
A couple of general thoughts on your last comment.
I apologize, I should have moved it to your purgatory, copied the relevant, on topic sections, then posted those here and responded to the on topic parts. Therefore, It may seem that I didn't do what you wanted, but the reality is that IF I respond to your off topic stuff, I'll do it on the purgatory post. I'll try to do a better job moving forward.
If Truth exists, and we choose to base our worldview on something other than the Truth, does that worldview have any value at all?
Craig...
If Truth exists, and
we choose to base our worldview on something other than the Truth,
does that worldview have any value at all?
I don't know of ANY worldview that has dedicated itself to choosing to be based on something other than Truth.
It may exist, but I'm not aware of it. Most worldviews, for instance, affirm the TRUTH of the GR (in some form or the other). So, even if that worldview (let's say extremist Muslims or extremist Christians) is largely acting in a bad manner, they DO affirm the Truth of the Golden Rule, and that's something.
Truth is True, no matter where it comes from.
Do you disagree?
IF IT WERE TRUE that there existed a worldview entirely opposed to Truth, I don't know what value that worldview would have.
To the degree that a worldview is dedicated to being opposed to Truth, I'd say that that worldview has diminished value or worth.
"Craig, do you NOW understand what my position is about objective truth? Why do you keep framing this question as if my view on objective truth is a mystery when I've never not been clear about it?"
Because your continued insistence that multiple "Truths" exist seems to contradict your assertions.
Given your yelling about this, why is it so difficult for you to sty on the topic of the post and answer the questions as if you believe what you say you believe?
"Is it the case that you think there is ONE WORLDVIEW that is the MOST TRUE of all of the worldviews out there?"
I think that it is certain that there is one worldview that "most closely aligns" with Truth, yes. Now Of course that doesn't answer the original question as asked.
"Are you suggesting that there is ONE worldview that is objectively true?"
No, you can tell this because i specifically said "most closely aligns with".
"...and demonstrably so?"
You're jumping ahead. But IF there is one worldview that DOES most closely align with The Truth, then theoretically it should be possible to demonstrate that. The problem with your leap is that you can't even agree that there is a worldview that "most closely aligns" with what is True. You're more concerned with trying to argue against your preconceptions of what I might say down the road, instead of simply answering the questions as asked.
The point of the questions is to try to determine of any "common ground" exists. Your continued jumping ahead and off topic comments are making that difficult.
"If so, WHICH WORLDVIEW, praytell, is objectively True? And you're basing that on... what?"
If you're going to be critical of me, "jumping ahead", the it's probably a good idea if you avoid engaging in the behavior you criticize. Having said that, answering that question now, would be akin to trying to frame the second floor of a structure before the foundation has been poured.
It gets back to a question you ignored earlier.
"If one worldview is True, then does it really matter if that worldview limits, excludes, or doesn't foster "common ground"?"
"It IS true that I do not believe that I can state authoritatively that THE WORLDVIEW SHARED BY MOST JEFF STREET BAPTIST MEMBERS IS OBJECTIVELY TRUE. And I sure as heck don't believe that YOU can state authoritatively that your worldview is objectively true."
This is all well and good. But it's simply a diversion away from the real question. The real question is "Is there a worldview that best explains, or most closely aligns with the Truth about the world we live in?"
It's not an "opinion" that I deny the ability to say that ONE WORLDVIEW that exists somewhere in the world today is THE ONE RIGHT WORLDVIEW and it is RIGHT in every regards. Hell yes, I deny that sort of power. I ain't God.
So, your answer to the question "Is there a worldview that best explains, or most closely aligns with the Truth about the world we live in?" is "No.", correct?
"Do you think YOU have that power? Why do you state it as if this is a bad thing?"
Nope, I don't, never said I did, has absolutely nothing to do with anything I've said or asked.
"On the other hand, I SURE AS GOD IS GOOD DO NOT DENY MY ABILITY TO KNOW WHAT'S TRUE."
So, you are claiming that we can know the Truth? You're now disagreeing with your notion of multiple "Truths"?
"It is True that YOU DO NOT AUTHORITATIVELY SPEAK FOR GOD."
Once again, I've never claimed to, so how about you stop the stupidity.
"Which is it?"
Based on your contradictory statements, I have no earthly idea and don't see how this digression has anything to do you you answering the questions I've asked, and helping in my attempt to find "common ground".
Personally, I see absolutely zero value in a worldview that is based on anything except the Truth.
Craig... Because your continued insistence that multiple "Truths" exist seems to contradict your assertions.
The extremist Muslim has what HE thinks is True. The extremist Christian has what HE thinks is True. The atheist has what she thinks is True. The Amish woman has what she thinks is True. Etc.
These are competing Truth claims, thus, I refer to the multiple Truth claims.
But I've always been quite clear that I believe in THE TRUTH. I've never obfuscated or been unclear about this. Which is why I've made bold and upper case this belief I've always held and spoken of. To help you see it and so it's not unclear. So, you really have no room now to say that Dan does not believe in One Truth, because I've clarified what was already clear.
Look, it's like this: If someone is saying something and later, they say something that you think might contradict that, then it behooves you to review whether there is an actual contradiction or if you're just not understanding something correctly.
Now do you understand?
Craig... IF there is one worldview that DOES most closely align with The Truth
MY answer to this question is I do not know how to authoritatively ascertain which of the myriad of worldviews out there most closely aligns with Truth. I believe as I believe because, to the best of my understanding, it most closely aligns with the Truth. But this is true for many, if not most, people.
Am I mistaken?
Craig...
"If one worldview is True, then does it really matter if that worldview limits, excludes, or doesn't foster "common ground"?"
I did answer your question, you just didn't like the answer.
Yes, it does. If I somehow knew objectively and authoritatively that MY worldview was THE CLOSEST to the actual Truth, I'm still living in a world where not everyone recognizes my divine-like authority. So, common ground is still vital to me while living in this world where people like you do not recognize my divine-like insight (IF it were the case that I somehow knew objectively and authoritatively that my worldview was closest to Truth).
Craig... your answer to the question "Is there a worldview that best explains, or most closely aligns with the Truth about the world we live in?" is "No.", correct?
No., that is not correct. Not exactly. IF the question is, "Is there a worldview that I BELIEVE best explains/most closely aligns with the Truth..?" then I would say there are several that I find great value in and, I BELIEVE, most closely aligns with Truth. The Quaker worldview held by many Quakers. The worldview of many Anabaptists. The worldview of many progressives.
The problem with the question - without the caveat/clarification of "I believe" - is that it presumes a god-like knowledge that I don't think we fully possess. I can't say authoritatively that THIS worldview BEST explains, as if it were a fact claim. I can state that my worldview BEST explains the Truth as I understand it.
I think that sort of humility is a vital bit of understanding Truth.
Do you disagree?
So, you are claiming that we can know the Truth?
YYYYESSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!
ONE MILLION TIMES, YES!
Do I think we can know the Truth OBJECTIVELY and AUTHORITATIVELY? No. But reasonably know the Truth? YES!
As I've always been quite clear about.
Is it the case that you're not understanding the difference between humbly stating "I think the Truth and morality is often quite abundantly clear..." and "I do not perfectly understand the Truth and can't objectively authoritatively prove my view about the Truth as an objective fact..."?
Personally, I see absolutely zero value in a worldview that is based on anything except the Truth.
Me, either.
WHO is doing this? You?
WHO out there is saying, "Hm... I know that the Truth is X... soooooo..., I'm going to base my worldview on NOT X..."?
Are you talking about people who are striving for Truth and who, through their human fallibility, are mistaken? That's not truly the same thing as them deciding to base their worldview on being opposed to the Truth, from a truthful point of view, is it?
Craig:
your answer to the question "Is there a worldview that best explains, or most closely aligns with the Truth about the world we live in?" is "No.", correct?
Dan (already stated:)
"I BELIEVE that a progressive, Christian, welcoming, grace and justice-oriented worldview best explains the world we live in."
So, the answer is No, as I've already answered and clarified.
"I don't know of ANY worldview that has dedicated itself to choosing to be based on something other than Truth.
Instead of this and trying to jump ahead, how about simply answering the question that was asked?
"Truth is True, no matter where it comes from. Do you disagree?" No, I don't. But neither your question, nor the rest of the post answers the question asked. Further, it assumes things that aren't in the question.
"The extremist Muslim has what HE thinks is True. The extremist Christian has what HE thinks is True. The atheist has what she thinks is True. The Amish woman has what she thinks is True. Etc. These are competing Truth claims, thus, I refer to the multiple Truth claims."
So, to be clear. when you said " I think some Truths and morality are better than others" and used the term "Truths" in multiple other places, you didn't actually mean what you wrote and instead meant something else. Perhaps more care in expressing your hunches would avoid both confusion and wasted time.
To address your new position. What these various people "believe" to be True is irrelevant to this conversation. I'm trying to lay discuss what's actually True and if there is any worldview that aligns most closely with The Truth. Until we come to "common ground" on that people's false beliefs aren't particularly relevant.
"MY answer to this question is I do not know how to authoritatively ascertain which of the myriad of worldviews out there most closely aligns with Truth. I believe as I believe because, to the best of my understanding, it most closely aligns with the Truth. But this is true for many, if not most, people."
That's not really an answer to the question as asked. IF (as you claim to believe) objective Truth does exist, then it should be relatively easy to look at the claims of various worldviews and compare those claims with the Truth, shouldn't it? The problem is that you're jumping from the "If" question to the "which one" question. Which of course doesn't actually answer the question as asked.
"Am I mistaken?"
You're mistaken in the sense that you're not answering the question as asked, you're answering a question that might theoretical follow the answer to the question being asked. you're also mistaken in that you're responding to a part of a question, not the entire question as asked.
"Yes, it does."
To be clear, the question as asked was "IF one worldview is True, then..." Are you seriously trying to say that a worldview that contradicts what is True, is equally valid to one that is "True"?
"If I somehow knew objectively and authoritatively that MY worldview was THE CLOSEST to the actual Truth, I'm still living in a world where not everyone recognizes my divine-like authority. So, common ground is still vital to me while living in this world where people like you do not recognize my divine-like insight (IF it were the case that I somehow knew objectively and authoritatively that my worldview was closest to Truth). Am I mistaken?"
You're not necessarily mistaken if you change the premise of the question I asked to something different.
You are mistaken in your jump ahead from ascertaining the Truth of a worldview to trying to establish some sort of "common ground". Unfortunately for you, common ground isn't the topic of this post. It's fascinating that you bitched about me "jumping ahead" yet that's something you do in every comment you post. It must be one of those double standard things where you operate by one set of rules while demanding other behave differently.
I'm going to make you an offer. I'll delete all of the comments in this thread, and we re start the thread with you simply and directly answering all of the questions asked, as they were asked. It seems like you doing that would save some time and misunderstanding. I'm offering in the hopes that we can stay focused on the post and the topic, at least until we see what, if any, common ground there is.
The problem with your offer is that I have been answering your questions. Directly and clearly. Some of your questions have implications that need to be addressed. Like the distinction between "Is there a worldview that best aligns with truth..?" and, "is there a world you that I THINK best aligns with truth?"
I've answered the letter and I've answered the former, by clarifying the problem inherent in the question.
The point remains, I am literally answering your questions with my opinions.
"No., that is not correct. Not exactly. IF the question is, "Is there a worldview that I BELIEVE best explains/most closely aligns with the Truth..?""
But, that's NOT the question as asked. How about you answer that question, instead of making up one you like better? If my question was unclear, I'm ONLY asking if there is ONE worldview that most closely aligns with the Truth, I'm not asking which one that is. It's literally, as asked, a yes or no question.
"then I would say there are several that I find great value in and, I BELIEVE, most closely aligns with Truth. The Quaker worldview held by many Quakers. The worldview of many Anabaptists. The worldview of many progressives."
That's great, yet we're not at the point of discussing the what makes you feel good about certain specific (sub) worldviews. If we were having THAT discussion, we could walk through the specifics of those options and discuss how they address certain aspects of reality. But, that's a discussion for further down the road.
"The problem with the question - without the caveat/clarification of "I believe" - is that it presumes a god-like knowledge that I don't think we fully possess. I can't say authoritatively that THIS worldview BEST explains, as if it were a fact claim. I can state that my worldview BEST explains the Truth as I understand it."
No, the question is fine as it is. As I just said that potential problem with the question was that I wasn't asking for a specific worldview, I was simply asking if there is one worldview that most closely aligns with the truth. If you'd like to answer that with yes or no, feel free.
"I think that sort of humility is a vital bit of understanding Truth. Do you disagree?"
No, I think that acknowledging the Truth should bring humility. I don't think it has anything to do with the topic.
Regarding your humility comment. If I assert the Truth that 2+2=4, I'm not in any way not being humble. Acknowledging the Truth isn't arrogant in any way.
FYI. When you write an entire comment, then add "Do you agree?" at the end, it's an annoying way to try to turn a statement into a question. If you think those kind of childish games are valuable, fine.
"Is it the case that you're not understanding the difference between humbly stating "I think the Truth and morality is often quite abundantly clear..." and "I do not perfectly understand the Truth and can't objectively authoritatively prove my view about the Truth as an objective fact..."?"
At this point, I'm interested in getting the questions I've asked answered based on the actual questions that were asked. I'm interested in laying a foundation for doing further exploration. It IS the case that I'm not interested in moving beyond establishing a foundation to further discussion.
If you are going to continue to try to slip morality into this conversation, the you will need to demonstrate that Truth and morality are the same thing. If you can't do that then stick to the topic.
"WHO is doing this? You?"
Do you just have problems with the concept of not jumping ahead or are you just being a pain in the ass? If I can't get you to simply and directly answer the yes or know question about the existence of one worldview that most closely aligns with Truth, that what's to point of getting into things that build on that foundation?
"WHO out there is saying, "Hm... I know that the Truth is X... soooooo..., I'm going to base my worldview on NOT X..."?"
Jumping ahead.
"Are you talking about people who are striving for Truth and who, through their human fallibility, are mistaken? That's not truly the same thing as them deciding to base their worldview on being opposed to the Truth, from a truthful point of view, is it?"
I think you're trying to make this harder than it is. I'm literally saying that it doesn't matter to the question I'm asking.
If the Truth is that 2+2=4, then any other answer regardless of the reason doesn't align with the Truth. I'm saying that IF Truth exists, then any worldview foundation other than the Truth, has zero value. In what possible construct is offering falsehood as the basis for a worldview better than offering the Truth. Again, it this point motivation isn't the issue.
As I've now clarified, the question about the existence of a worldview that most closely matches the world we live in was a yes of no question.
Alrighty then, your opinion that you've answered every question I've asked, as it's been asked, is interesting. It might be worthwhile to see how well your opinion lines up with the truth.
Two comments before your opinion, there's literally at least one question you haven't answered. I guess your opinion doesn't align with the truth in this case.
Craig... "If the Truth is that 2+2=4, then any other answer regardless of the reason doesn't align with the Truth..."
Two plus two equals four is a fact-based claim. The answer to that is demonstrable and observable and objective. Our opinions about moral questions and Truth are often not that sort of fact base and objective situation.
If it is true the god celebrates gay folks getting married, then that is true regardless of what the fundamentalist Muslim or Christian might say or think. But I can't prove that one way or the other. Which makes it a different type than the fact that type math questions you're offering as an example.
Am I mistaken about something?
As to a missed question, I'm sure I don't know what it is.
Craig... "it's an annoying way to try to turn a statement into a question."
Maybe that's what it is for you. It's literally not what it is for me. It's an attempt to see if there's been clairity and we have reached some understanding.
I'm stating, this is what is reasonable to me. do you agree? Is it logical to you? Does that make sense to you? If we have agreement then I don't need to keep trying to clarify what we already agree upon.
Dan,
The reality is that 2+2=4 is the Truth. The fact that it’s math doesn’t matter. The point is that anyone whose worldview was based on 2+2=5, is basing their worldview on the opposite of the Truth.
Now, in theory, your example would make sense. The problem is that while 2+2=4 is True beyond any rational argument, there is enough evidence against your gay marriage example to raise questions about the Truth of your premise. The problem with your example is that, it’s simply one more attempt to jump ahead, without establishing the foundation. It’s almost like establishing the common ground of a foundation to measure worldviews against is something you want to avoid. It’s almost like your worried that this might undermine something you hold dear.
As an aside, your obsession with inserting homosexual sex into virtually every thread you comment on is both tiresome and appears to be a pathetic attempt to divert attention away from any topic. We could start with the fact that there is zero mention of this phenomenon anywhere in scripture.
“As to a missed question, I’m sure I don’t know what it is.
Well since you’re too lazy to look, I’ll do it for you. Don’t get used to it, it’s the reason why it’s a bad idea to feed wild animals, it makes them dependent.
“”To be clear, the question as asked was "IF one worldview is True, then..." Are you seriously trying to say that a worldview that contradicts what is True, is equally valid to one that is "True"?”
It’s still annoying. The fact that you can’t ask specific questions tied to specific issues, but instead tack a braid generic question on to your stream of consciousness ramblings doesn’t indicate an actual desire for an answer, so much as wanting affirmation for your unproven opinions.
Tell me what term you would like me to use to assess if we have reached common ground and I will use your term. I'm flexible.
Craig... "“”To be clear, the question as asked was "IF one worldview is True, then..." Are you seriously trying to say that a worldview that contradicts what is True, is equally valid to one that is "True"?”
No.
Ignoring all the comments, I wanted to say that your position that "'What is True?' is the critical question" is exactly the critical question. "Is it limiting?" or "Do we all agree?" or so many others are, largely, irrelevant if it's true. Unfortunately, those other kinds of questions will completely derail the conversation. It will devolve into "Who says what is true?" (which sounds a lot like Pilate's scoffing remark to Jesus just before he had Him executed). The suggestion will be "How can we know what is true?" or, put another way, "We cannot know what is true." We arrive at "It's all opinion" which includes, for reasons I don't grasp, "So my opinion is right and yours is wrong and we ought to go by my opinion over yours." It will be underlined with a subliminal "God can't tell me what to do; I will be god in my life ... and hopefully yours, too."
Dan,
To your common ground comment, it makes no sense and seems pointless.
To your second, that’s 2 questions you’ve answered in a direct manner. It’s better than usual.
Stan,
Of course you are correct. Who would have thought that a post trying to establish as a baseline that a worldview that most closely aligned with what is True is good, and a worldview that aligns less closely is bad.
I would suggest that, accepting the reality that Truth is, by definition, exclusive is valuable as is establishing that there is only one true Truth.
The who question is less valuable at this point, since it’s immaterial until the foundational questions have been answered.
I agree that the various preconceptions you mentioned are huge hurdles and make the conversation difficult.
At least part of the discussion is around the fact that things like religion have been moved from the realm of the real, to the realm of preference and opinion.
Craig, let's just look at your first question and my answers that were direct and clear and rational. Your comments/questions in italics, my responses in bold, my NEW comments are in normal font...
Craig: Which worldview is True? Which worldview best explains the world we live in?
Dan responded:
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?
I began with the important clarifying point that none of us are in an authoritative position to answer authoritatively and factually that any given opinion about "which worldview is True?" MUST be recognized as a non-authoritative and subjective opinion. I then asked the reasonable question: DO YOU AGREE?
This is just establishing that we are starting with reality. Conversely, if you think the clarifying point I raised (that any opinions we offer about this ARE subjective, non-authoritative opinions) is NOT factual, then you can make the case for that. This is why it is important to verify and why I asked.
I continued answering your question...
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?
That is, I continued clarifying that reasonable people would recognize that different worldviews might all have something to contribute to the notion of Truth. This creates a difficulty in answering your question directly because, WHAT IF, for instance, someone thought that the S Baptist worldview was correct on 75% of matters (as if they could even quantify that) and that the conservative Methodist worldview was correct on 73% of matters... but there was no total overlap on the areas that these two groups were "right" (in this person's opinion)... how does one weigh the amount and "right-ness" of the areas where these two groups are right? Add to that equation that there IS no ONE S Baptist worldview nor one conservative Methodist worldview... each congregation is different and within each congregation, each member was different...
HOW does one assess the degree of right-ness any one given worldview might have??
This is an exercise in an impossibly subjective guessing.
SO, perhaps you want to clarify the question with something like...
"I recognize that this is impossible to state authoritatively and with ANY kind of precision at all... but pretend that you were omniscient and you were able to KNOW OBJECTIVELY which broad worldview best aligned with Truth and best explain the world... what worldview do you think that would be?"
Or...
"Just a best guess (recognizing there's no way to definitively quantify such matters): What worldview do you THINK comes closest to best explaining the world and representing Truth, as you understand it?"
Or something like that.
Do you see the value in clarifying your question?
I CONTINUED answering your questions, answering the second question EXACTLY the best way possible (given the reality that I can't say "I authoritatively KNOW that a progressive..."):
I BELIEVE that a progressive, Christian, welcoming, grace and justice-oriented worldview best explains the world we live in.
That IS a direct answer to the question. UNLESS you're asking me to answer the question authoritatively, which I can't do. No one can.
Am I mistaken?
How are these NOT direct and clear and precise-as-possible answers to the questions asked?
I think I already did this, but those first questions were probably not worded as well as they could have been,
It probably should have been worded thus.
Can there be a worldview that most closely aligns with what is True?
Can there be a worldview that best explains the world we live in?
For the less than optimal wording, I apologize. I understand that some of my frustration with your responses was that I had worded the questions poorly, and for that, I apologize.
"I began with the important clarifying point that none of us are in an authoritative position to answer authoritatively and factually that any given opinion about "which worldview is True?" MUST be recognized as a non-authoritative and subjective opinion. I then asked the reasonable question: DO YOU AGREE?"
No. I believe that it is reasonable to look at the claims made by any worldview and test those claims against reality. The worldview that most closely matches objective reality would seem to be the logical choice.
"HOW does one assess the degree of right-ness any one given worldview might have??"
By examining how closely it aligns with reality. For example, if a worldview claimed that humans have tails, we could quickly asses the correspondence of that claim with reality.
"Do you see the value in clarifying your question?"
Yes, which I did in this comment. I don't see the value of you reframing my question to incorporate your preconceptions and biases, which you've never quite been able to prove to be objectively True.
"I BELIEVE that a progressive, Christian, welcoming, grace and justice-oriented worldview best explains the world we live in."
Yes, you did offer this opnion.
"That IS a direct answer to the question. UNLESS you're asking me to answer the question authoritatively, which I can't do. No one can."
It's an answer to the question as asked, which I've acknowledged was poorly worded. I'd hope you'd answer the question as I've revised it as well.
"Am I mistaken? How are these NOT direct and clear and precise-as-possible answers to the questions asked?"
I really don't understand how you think asking the same question multiple ways in the same comment helps, but I hope you understand why I'm not going to answer it every time you ask.
The hope of this post is to establish a foundation, my questions didn't convey the same things on the screen as they did in my mind.
You can either accept my apologies, acknowledge what I've said and move on or not, it's up to you.
Thanks for the apology. Yes, those questions are different. Those questions are easy to answer.
"Can there be a worldview that most closely aligns with what is True?
Can there be a worldview that best explains the world we live in?"
Yes. Yes.
Thanks.
Stan,
I wanted to follow up. I agree that "What is True?" is critical, but I'd suggest that "Does Truth exist?" is more foundational. In our postmodern world the very concept of Truth is denied. You see it in, "Truth is relative", "Your truth.", "My truth", etc. Even in this very thread we've seen references to "Truths" as if there are multiples.
So, while I'm not disagreeing at all, I think there's at least one level that's even more foundational.
Sometimes we use the term Truths to refer to literal multiple truths. For instance, we believe that there is a truth that God exists. We believe that it is a truth that Jesus is the son of God. Some May believe that it is a truth that penal substitution Theory explains how to understand salvation. I believe in the truth the gay folk and straight Folk being involved in good marriages is a beautiful thing, we probably all believe in the truth that the Earth is God's good creation.
These are multiple truths. Some of which we met agree about and others we don't. Does that make sense help understand why we might use truths in the plural and do so legitimately?
"I AGREE THAT OBJECTIVE TRUTH EXISTS.
I AGREE THAT THERE IS OBJECTIVE TRUTH.
I HAVE ALWAYS STATED THAT I BELIEVE IN OBJECTIVE TRUTH!
I HAVE NEVER STATED THAT THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE TRUTH!"
Dan
"These are multiple truths"
You, ADAMANTLY agree that objective Truth exists.
You, repeatedly claim that there are "multiple truths" or "Truths".
It seems inevitable that there will be a situation where one of the "multiple truths" that you "believe", runs counter to the "objective Truth", you claim to agree with.
That seems like quite the conundrum.
Under different circumstances I'd suggest that given your multiple approaches to the concept of "Truths" in this thread, that I'd give you some grace and conclude that you just used poor word choice. But, the fact that after at least two explanations that conflict with one another, and your certainty and repetition in the recent comment, I'm pretty sure that you said exactly what you meant to, and said it over and over.
I'd like to thank you for validating the initial premise of this post and doing it so well.
Thank You!
This notion that one word, can mean two different and opposite things at the same time seems like a violation of the law of non-contradiction.
Perhaps if you would define objective Truth as you are using it?
I'm using it to talk about topics, ideas, actions, beliefs.
Is it moral or not to have an abortion? There is an objective truth about that. Does it matter if the life of the mother is at risk? Or the pregnancy was a result of a rape? Or incest? Thereare objective truths about those questions. What about driving a fossil fuel vehicle, is that wrong to do so on a daily basis? How about on a weekly basis? There is an objective truth to those answers.
There are five - seven different topics, with five - seven different objective truths, presumably.
What is wrong with using Truths in a plural manner? Please answer.
What one word has two different and opposite meanings, do you think, and who's making that suggestion?
I’m using the term Truth (preceded by The or Objective) to refer to that which is True in all times, all places, all cultures, under all circumstances.
Pretty much the only definition of Objective Truth going.
This is fascinating, you’ve gone from being pissed that I said you don’t believe in knowable objective Truth, to vehemently insisting that you do, to using the term Truths, to denying that Truths meant Truths, to insisting that there are multiple truths, to defining Object Truth as morality.
If you can’t even be consistent about how you use the word Truth, this conversation has been utterly pointless.
If you can’t understand why a singularity (Objective Truth) can’t be plural, then I can’t help you.
Because the same word can’t be singular and plural simultaneously.
You’ve gone down some really idiot paths in the past, but this might be the absolutely most idiotic of all. I’m so glad I tried to keep you from jumping ahead, because you can’t even grasp the basic concept under discussion.
“Objectivity is a philosophical concept of being true independently from individual subjectivity caused by perception, emotions, or imagination. A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject. ”
“There is an objective truth. It's one truth that's the same for all people. This is the common sense view. It means there is one answer per question.”
“As an example, we offer the proposition, “Jim’s car is a Hyundai”. Is this an objective claim or a subjective claim? It is clearly objective. My car is either a Hyundai or it is not, and my personal opinion will not change this fact. The truth is rooted in the nature of the object, the Hyundai automobile, and it is not dependent upon my subjective opinion. Now let’s examine another claim: “Hyundai’s are the coolest (hippest) cars”. This second claim is highly personal depending on what each of us considers “hip” or “cool”. Our opinion about this is rooted in each of us as subjects who hold varying opinions about “hipness” or “coolness”. See the difference? “1+1=2” is an objective truth statement; “Math is fun” is a subjective claim.”
“The idea of truth as objective is simply that no matter what we believe to be the case, some things will always be true and other things will always be false. Our beliefs, whatever they are, have no bearing on the facts of the world around us. That which is true is always true — even if we stop believing it and even if we stop existing at all.”
“Truth is most often used to mean being in accord with fact or reality, or fidelity to an original or standard.”
“1) : the body of real things, events, and facts : ACTUALITY
(2) : the state of being the case : FACT
(3) often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality”
The reality is that saying Objective Truth is redundant, or was until this bizarre notions of multiple truths came along.
Once again, now that you’ve acknowledged using nonstandard definitions of Objective Truth, I’m going to give you the opportunity to let me start this thread over. Lord knew that the issue would be defining Objective Truth.
Using the examples you're citing...
“As an example, we offer the proposition, “Jim’s car is a Hyundai”. Is this an objective claim or a subjective claim? It is clearly objective. My car is either a Hyundai or it is not, and my personal opinion will not change this fact.
“1+1=2”
So, the OBJECTIVE TRUTH to Jim's car is a Hyundai? is, let's suppose, Yes. it IS a Hyundai.
BUT, the objective Truth to 1+1=2 IS NOT "Yes, it is a Hyundai."
1+1 has its OWN Truth, apart from What car does Jim drive? The answer to those questions are TWO SEPARATE and UNIQUE Truths.
Right? Why is it wrong to refer to THOSE TRUTHS about those different questions?
So, looking at this quote...
“There is an objective truth. It's one truth that's the same for all people. This is the common sense view. It means there is one answer per question.”
About a GIVEN TOPIC, there is an objective Truth. Jim DOES own a Hyundai. THAT is THE ONE objective Truth about that question.
But there isn't just one question in the world. Worldviews are not just an answer to one question.
Right?
Craig... The reality is that saying Objective Truth is redundant, or was until this bizarre notions of multiple truths came along.
Once again, now that you’ve acknowledged using nonstandard definitions of Objective Truth, I’m going to give you the opportunity to let me start this thread over. Lord knew that the issue would be defining Objective Truth.
Once again, the problem is NOT that I'm engaged in "bizarre notions," NOR that I'm using nonstandard definitions of Objective Truth. The problem is, once again, that YOU have failed to understand that I'm just making rational sense.
The fault lies in your understanding, NOT my words. Do you recognize that, yet?
This is absurd, I know playing semantic games is something you like to do, but in the absence of something on topic, I’m done.
On topic defined as using the normal meaning of Objective Truth.
I noticed that you ignored some of the definitions/examples.
The most relevant one you ignored is the Truth is that which conforms to reality.
So if Jim’s car is a Hyundai, the statement is True because it conforms to reality.
But, as usual you’d rather cherry pick.
Yes Dan, you are always perfect even when you contradict yourself of make up your own nonsensical definitions.
The level of pride, hubris, and arrogance is truly stunning. To seriously think that “I’m always right.” and “You're always wrong.”, and my made up definition of truth is “reality” is a totally rational string of thoughts.
Just to be clear...
1. I've never said I was always perfect.
2. I have not contradicted myself and you can't point to any place where I have. What you're pointing to are incidents of you failing to understand what I'm saying. Which is not the same as me contradicting myself.
It's entirely possible that I might contradict myself at some point, but your not pointing to any instances of that happening.
3. I absolutely don't think that I am always right oh, so I'm not sure what level of hubris you're speaking of. The hubris of pointing up when you've misunderstood me? When that be a chance for you to be a bit more humble, yourself, and admit you misunderstood?
4. I have not made up a definition of truth. Instead, you have misunderstood what I said and thought I was doing this made up definition. But here again, it's an incident of you failing to understand, not of me making up a definition.
Are you doing ok?
I'm concerned for you.
I'd like to say that I don't think your initial question was worded the way it was most recently presented...which led to the apology that shouldn't have been necessary had the original question (a "yes/no") been answered directly.
I also think you should delete this whole thread and begin again. Then I could answer the questions along side Dan to show him there's no reason to fear. It's more likely than not that he regards the whole exercise as a trap or a set up. Well, to some extent, that's probably true, but not in the malevolent way he likely thinks. Indeed, he does the very same thing but with more leading questions at his blog...sometime before he deletes you.
The idea of "truths" is likely better presented as "truth claims". There can be millions of truth claims, but still only Truth. Typically, in discussions about Truth, "truth claims" are irrelevant except for use as examples. (Dan likes to use a particularly false example, but what the hell...)
Many, if not most, truth claims are competing against each other. There can be truth claims that can co-exist because they're about different subjects, topics or issues, while others are in direct conflict:
If Jim owns a Hyundai, then to say Jim's car is a Hyundai is a truth claim.
If Jim also owns a Ford, then to say Jim's car is a Ford is also a truth claim and the two claims are not in conflict because both are actually true.
But if Jim owns only a Hyundai, one person can state that Jim's car is a Hyundai, while another can say Jim's car is a Ford and they are both still truth claims, but they are in conflict. One claim is actually true and the other is not, but they are both presented in the same way...as if true. For those who need to know exactly what kind of car Jim's is...say, the Secretary of State or Allstate Insurance...functioning is impaired by accepting the false "truth claim" that Jim's car is a Ford. And no matter how deeply and sincerely the false claim is believed, it won't make it true and it will directly negatively impact all who act on the false claim, and Jim also will be collateral damage because of it.
Worldviews are the same.
1. No, it's just that when mistakes or misunderstandings happen, you virtually always blame others.
2. OK, I'll start pulling the quotes today. However, I predict that you'll hatch a creative semantic strategy to argue that you didn't mean what you wrote, or that the words are being used with a nonstandard, secret Dan definition.
3. Just the general hubris of you declaring things to be "reality" without demonstrating that fact.
4. Speaking of #1 and #3. When you literally disagree with the literal definition of Truth, I think it's safe to say you've made that up. When you can't provide anything to support your claims, it likely means you've made it up.
3. The only times I referr to reality is when I'm talking about, you know, facts in the real world. That is, reality. For instance, your suggestion that I've disagreed with the literal definition of Truth. In reality, in the real world, the fact is that did not happen. If you are making a claim that I have done so, then the onus is on you to support that claim. But since the fact is that that never happened in the real world, you are just factually mistaken.
4. See the above. In reality, you cannot point to any place where this has happened.
Dan,
I've got a great idea. Instead of demanding that everyone else "prove" every single thing you even slightly disagree with, how about you put on some big boy pants and prove the claims you make.
The reason why I ask is that when someone does prove you wrong (as I did about your absurd claim about gay marriage), you rarely ever seem able to refute anything. Weeks ago, I pointed out significant flaws with your "self evident" hunch, and I've never seen you address those. I wonder why? I realize that your usual MO is to move on to another subject or another thread, then, finally, demand that I search back and find whatever it is that you avoided.
So, for a change, live up to the same standard you demand of others.
Craig... Instead of demanding that everyone else "prove" every single thing you even slightly disagree with, how about you put on some big boy pants and prove the claims you make.
You want me to PROVE that I never said something? Okay, just look at ALL the words I ever said and you'll see that I never said that. Literally, it hasn't happened.
IF you're going to make a claim that I have done something, the onus is on you to show that I've done it.
Since I haven't ever said what you claim I've said (ie, "disagreed with the definition of Truth"), ALL I can do is point to how I haven't said it. I can't prove a negative.
But you know that, right?
There you go again playing games. That you claim you didn't say something doesn't make up the entire body of claims you've made...appeals to "reality"...first which you've done nothing to provide supporting evidence or argument. As such, it's crystal clear Craig wasn't referring to what you claim you didn't say. It's clear to you as well, I'm sure.
No, I want you to prove the claims you make.
I know you can’t prove a negative, I pointed that out when you demanded I do so.
It interesting that you seem to have a grip on the concept of burden of proof when it applies to others, but absolutely no idea how it works when it should apply to you.
“The only times I referr to reality is when I'm talking about, you know, facts in the real world. That is, reality.”
Oh look. Here’s a claim of objective fact. No unprovable negative only a simple, direct, positive claim of fact.
So, prove it.
I'm sorry if I was not clear.
THE ONLY TIMES HERE, IN THIS CONVERSATION, THAT I'VE REFERRED TO REALITY IS WHEN I'M TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, FACTS IN THE REAL WORLD.
I'm quite sure that there may be times that I've slipped in the past and accidentally referred to reality when I was actually talking about an opinion, but TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, it has NOT happened in this conversation.
If you think I have, the onus is on YOU to point to some place where I haven't.
Again, all I can do is point to the all the places where it doesn't exist.
The onus is on YOU to demonstrate that I've done this.
You almost certainly can't.
Although, to be sure, I'm a fallible human... it could have happened. I'm just not aware of any places and I've certainly never done it (as in NEVER DONE IT) intentionally.
The ball's in your court.
I know you can’t prove a negative, I pointed that out when you demanded I do so.
I don't recall the details, but that was almost certainly yet another incident of you failing to understand my meaning, NOT where I asked you to prove a negative.
Craig, I don't know that you're grasping this, but you regularly misconstrue my points and my words. This, in spite of me spending more time than I should re-stating and clarifying things to help you understand. And here, I can easily give an example: Your repeated false claims that I've offered a non-standard definition of Truth or that I'm being irrational or inconsistent in referring to both Truth and TRUTHS.
Your failure to understand is not my failure to communicate.
Dan's original claim, which I've asked him to prove.
“The only times I referr to reality is when I'm talking about, you know, facts in the real world. That is, reality.”
Dan's response isn't to prove the clear and unambiguous claim he made, it's to make a different claim after the fact.
"I'm sorry if I was not clear.
THE ONLY TIMES HERE, IN THIS CONVERSATION, THAT I'VE REFERRED TO REALITY IS WHEN I'M TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, FACTS IN THE REAL WORLD."
No, your original claim was quite clear and specific, apparently it was also false. I'm sorry that you had to make a different claim because you couldn't prove your first claim. It's confusing, you bitch because we make assumptions based on what you say, yet you also expect us to make assumptions about what you say.
Nonetheless, you've made tow separate and distinct claims, and proven neither one of them. Which leaves us right back where we started. If you are going to demand that others do things, you need to do the things you demand of others. But somehow, as in this case, you've always got an excuse.
"If you think I have, the onus is on YOU to point to some place where I haven't."
So, now it's my job to prove the claims that you made? just like it's my job to spoon feed you everything I reference. As I said, you have no problem trying to put the burden of proof on others, especially when it belongs on you.
Dan- "I've never said I was always perfect."
Also Dan- "I don't recall the details, but that was almost certainly yet another incident of you failing to understand my meaning, NOT where I asked you to prove a negative.
No, you haven't ever used the words "always perfect", yet you regularly default to "it can't be my fault".
"YOU BELIEVE that a traditional Calvinist, conservative (or however you define your religious/philosophical worldview) best explains the world we live in."
The above is another claim you should probably prove.
As to the proving a negative, if I find it, I'll post it. If not I'll acknowledge that I can't find it.
Craig.. you haven't ever used the words "always perfect", yet you regularly default to "it can't be my fault".
This is an unsupported and simply false claim that you can't support. As you can see in my previous comment where I state that I am ENTIRELY capable of making mistakes ("I'm a fallible human"). I never have said, either, that "it can't be my fault." Just hasn't happened. Another false claim.
What I DO, however, is say that IF I haven't said something, that, in fact, I haven't said something. IF you are misunderstanding me, I state that you are misunderstanding me. That isn't to say that I'm "always perfect" or that "it can't be my fault," just to state the reality that you are misunderstanding me when you are misunderstanding me (i.e., when you say I said or claimed something that I haven't said or claimed.)
Craig quoted me as an alleged example of me making a claim I can't support... "YOU BELIEVE that a traditional Calvinist, conservative (or however you define your religious/philosophical worldview) best explains the world we live in."
Maybe I'm wrong, but it's hard to say. IS IT THE CASE that you don't think that the worldview you believe in best explains the world we live in? You tell me.
In the case of that comment, I think I was pretty clear that this is what I believe you're saying, but you so regularly choose not to answer questions that it's hard to say.
IF you tell me, right here, right now, that you DON'T think your worldview best explains the world we live in, I'll admit that I was mistaken in my guessing that you do.
Generally speaking, I think most of us humans believe our worldview best explains the world because, otherwise, wouldn't we choose another worldview? I mean, who says, "Well, I think that scientific liberal Buddhist worldview is the one that BEST explains the world we live in... nonetheless, I don't accept it... I believe in the conservative creationist worldview... even though I don't think it satisfactorily explains the world we live in..."
Does that happen anywhere to anyone?
Got it.
Instead of acknowledging the indisputable, demonstrable fact that you made a claim of fact.
Instead of even bothering to engage in the charade of proving the clear, indisputable, demonstrable claim of fact that you made.
You think that somehow announcing "YOU BELIEVE" is actually saying "this is what I believe you're saying".
No where in the exact quote of your claim is there anything that in any way indicates that you are doing anything but making a claim of fact.
If you think that your after the fact attempt to change the claim you made to an entirely different claim is effective, you're wrong.
Then, instead of proving your claim, you expect me to prove it for you. I am literally laughing so hard that I can't type. Your vain attempt to manipulate yourself out of acknowledging your failure is pathetic. Whats more pathetic is that you aren't smart enough to even know what your false claim of fact is.
I'm going to suggest that humility, asking questions before asserting things as facts (or at least waiting to see what my response is to the question), before running away and making false claims based on your prejudices and assumptions would generally be a good idea.
As we're finding out, you writing what you actually mean isn't always well executed.
Your attempt to avoid reality is impressive. It's also arrogant, prideful, and obnoxious, but impressive nonetheless.
Craig, you come across as someone who's intent on being divisive and belligerent and up to us. If you're truly just not able to understand things that have been written in a completely clear manner, if not perfect, then get help. You're having trouble understanding simple conversation. Get help.
If you're intentionally being belligerent and combative, get help for that. I'm done. I give up. I tried.
"you are a coward and a pig and a defender of rapists. You are the enemy of women and shame on you, you low life rapeboy."
Given that you apparently believe that the quote above is NOT belligerent and combative, I don't know what to say.
What I'm convinced of, is that this is your version of the "faux outrage" excuse for leaving when you have nothing to offer. Fortunately for me, you are extremely predictable.
I'm sorry that you are offended when people don't simply accept everything you say as "reality". You're probably right that expecting you to prove your claims, holding you
accountable when you don't, and pointing out the flaws in your hunches seems divisive. Probably because it is divisive. Perhaps because it is. I have to note your use of the royal "us" as if you represent a multitude, or that you're convinced that your Gollum, but that just brings thing back to your hubris.
Let's look at some things that are objectively, demonstrably True.
1. You are unable to prove this claim. "YOU BELIEVE that a traditional Calvinist, conservative (or however you define your religious/philosophical worldview) best explains the world we live in."
2. You can't dodge this contradictory statement, ""So, you really have no room now to say that Dan does not believe in One Truth, because I've clarified what was already clear."
3. You haven't lived up to this promise, "However, I'll be glad to give my best answers that I can to these rather science-oriented questions AS SOON AS you answer the questions I asked you first in the next post where you put my comments and questions."
4. Can't acknowledge that this is wrong, "Ten questions that will almost certainly go ignored."
5. Can't prove this claim to be True, "An increasing majority of the world thinks it is abundantly clear that gay and lesbian folk marrying is a holy, beautiful, glorious great moral good and a joy to all."
6. Can't muster up enough gumption to even acknowledge, let alone counter the data that demonstrates the likelihood that the quote in #5 is objectively false.
Now, I could likely go on, but there's really no need to. But if pointing out those five things (demonstrably, objectively, True things), is divisive then I'm guilty. If being firm in trying to get you to do what you said and acknowledge certain realities is belligerent, OK I guess I'll own belligerence in the cause of Truth and accountability.
I'm sure that being pressed on things you'd rather ignore and move past might appear as combative, but allowing you to comfortably Ignore things isn't my job.
Originally, I called the the "faux outrage" gambit, but it's that plus a little bit of the "Gaslight gambit".
So, y'all can run away in any way you'd like if it allows you to keep y'alls self images intact.
Just to deal with the question about shifting global perspectives on/acceptance of homosexuality...
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2013/06/04/the-global-divide-on-homosexuality/
You can read about this topic and how modernizing and education brings with it a progressive trend towards being more accepting. I don't know that we know that 51% of the world now accepts homosexuality, but clearly this is the trend (and may well be where we are).
An increasing majority of the world is coming to recognize that LGBTQ folks have the right to their own lives (of course) and this is because of the Golden Rule/Do No Harm/Acceptance of Human Rights that comes with good reasoned thinking.
Like it or not, the world IS progressing. The trend is towards progress and human rights, not away. The only way to fight that is to join with the anti-education/anti-liberty forces of fascism and oppression.
Choose the right side.
You can continue to miss the point/run away/fail to understand, but I've done all I can to help you.
An increasing PERCENTAGE of the world is coming to realize LGBTQ folks have rights is the more correct way of saying what I was trying to say. For what it's worth. I don't know that we know if it's reached a majority yet or not.
This is absolutely hilarious. I've had stats and all sorts of response to your false claim up for over a week and now that I've pointed out your failure, you come late to the party.
The fact remains that your original claim, as presented, has been falsified on at least two fronts. While the numbers might be increasing, it's still not a majority, and there is absolutely ZERO evidence to support this claim "holy, beautiful, glorious great moral good and a joy to all.".
Then you add an additional claim that I'll assume is false until you provide proof.
"because of the Golden Rule/Do No Harm/Acceptance of Human Rights that comes with good reasoned thinking.", The multiple studies that I saw, didn't in any way affirm either of these last two claims of yours. But, now that you've come late to this, please prove your claims.
"Like it or not, the world IS progressing. The trend is towards progress and human rights, not away.
Assumption #1. That this really is a long term trend. #2 That this "trend" is "progress". #3. That all progress is good and positive.
You might want to prove that your assumptions are correct, before stating them as facts.
"Choose the right side."
I already have.
"You can continue to miss the point/run away/fail to understand, but I've done all I can to help you"
No, I don't miss your point at all, although you really have done very little as the small selection of your failures in the comment above and the lack of proof in the recent comment demonstrate.
"An increasing PERCENTAGE of the world is coming to realize LGBTQ folks have rights is the more correct way of saying what I was trying to say."
That's an interesting and face saving way of admitting that your claim about "majority" was false. Had you not run away from the thread where I responded/answered your questions*, you would have seen that it's clearly not a majority.
"For what it's worth. I don't know that we know if it's reached a majority yet or not"
1. That's because you made a claim of fact without knowing, caring, or checking to see if it was True. Or maybe it's one of those "truths" you keep talking about, only it's a false "truth".
2. That's because you didn't pay attention the the thread where this was dealt with and your questions answered.*
3. You just can't admit that you were wrong, even in the face of data, you just can't do it.
* I suspect that I know why you've stayed away from the thread where I dealt with this and answered your questions. I suspect it was so that you could "honestly" claim that I hadn't answered your questions, because your "hadn't seen" the answers. Or, it could be that you're lazy, or any one of a few more options.
"An increasing PERCENTAGE of the world is coming to realize LGBTQ folks have rights is the more correct way of saying what I was trying to say."
I just can't leave comments like this sitting out there without addressing them.
Honest and intelligent people already knew these immoral and/or disordered people had rights. At least in THIS country. As to the rest of the world, there are definitely some nations, many of the muslim dominated, don't recognize rights for many different people, even some who are normal, but not muslim. Among these nations, perhaps some are coming to realize that the rights they always had exist and should be respected. But the problem is, what do people like YOU believe those rights to be and are they indeed "rights" or special privileges for which they have no legitimate demand.
In our country, we've been forced by judicial fiat to accept those special privileges these people demanded and pretend they were rights denied. They were not. Considering the way laws were enacted, the way words were defined and always understood...even by the majority of these immoral and/or disordered people...and the way the culture decided by consensus what constituted moral behavior, no actual rights were EVER denied them.
All that has changed (at least for now) without any regard for the harms that have been imposed on the rest of society, as well as the harm to themselves...which is never acknowledged by them or their enablers. Thus, the "do no harm" aspect of Dan's morality is ignored to appease self-gratification, and the Golden Rule is been set aside as it applies to all those who now are greatly put out for the benefit of those for whom sexual self-gratification is all.
Progress? BS!!
There’s so much to respond to, it’s hard to focus sometimes.
The problem is that the data, somewhat demonstrates a trend toward some degree of change on the SSM issue, but given the large percentage of the world that lives in actual repressive societies, the SSM number will probably cap relatively soon. So, unless Dan decides to lead a pro SSM protest in Tehran, it’s probably never going to get to an overwhelming percentage,
His bigger problem is that he’s attempting to assign specific motives to those that support the changes, motives that aren’t even measured. So, the bottom line is that it’s one more false claim that he’ll try to remove word or twist around now that it’s demonstrated to be false.
He regards whatever increase in tolerance for the LGBT agenda there is to be a sign that their desires and behaviors are actually moral. Again, another case of morality by consensus. Should every living human being come to regard homosexual behavior as OK, it would still be worthy of death in the eyes of God, because HE calls it detestable. Nothing in Scripture changes that, and thus, nothing outside of Scripture can ever hope to.
I think it goes further than that, he seems to believe that it indicates love for everything gay or something, I mean look at the quote about bringing joy to everyone or however he put it.
The problem is that he’s looking at one indicator and reading emotions, and feelings into that indicator that just aren’t demonstrated by the data.
I could make a rational argument for civil authorities recognizing SSM, while still acknowledging that scripture teaches what it teaches. I can make that case, without feeling joy, holiness, beauty, or glory.
But like so many things, Dan starts with unproven assumptions and builds from those instead of starting from neutrality and following the facts and data where they lead.
"I could make a rational argument for civil authorities recognizing SSM, while still acknowledging that scripture teaches what it teaches. I can make that case, without feeling joy, holiness, beauty, or glory."
I don't believe such an argument exists, but I get your point. For one who claims to be a Christian, to constantly pretend there is some real Scriptural basis for celebrating two homosexuals marrying...as if that somehow mitigates the detestable state of the sexual behaviors they no doubt will perpetuate...is a "truth" (truth claim) that has yet to be supported by anything from Scripture itself, without first redefining words and terms and injecting meaning the text itself doesn't in any way suggest or imply. Sure, I've met more than my share of people who are related to homosexuals or lesbians and as such feel a personal compulsion to defend them and their desires. And sure, they want their friends/family members to be happy. But despite there being no way to make that emotional argument into a rational one, even if another Christian were to concede it out of Christian love, to feel good about the notion of SSM definitely suggests putting something above one's devotion to God and His Will.
Dan's position is convoluted at best and his interpretation of data regarding this issue is not sound, not rational and not logic based at all. He again asserts meaning for which there is no basis.
Art,
Here’s a shot it one.
The lifestyle on most single homosexuals is dangerous. It’s high risk for all sorts of things. Therefore a stable, committed, long term, exclusive, monogamous, relationship is less unsafe than a life of promiscuity. If calling that commitment a civil marriage encourages people to engage in it, then it’s beneficial to the individual and to society.
This argument isn’t perfect, but it does allow for support of SSM, while maintaining a belief that homosexuality is sinful. It certainly encourages less harmful behavior. It’s also only about civil marriages.
Where it’s probably wrong, is that it still allows other groups to use SSM as a stepping stone to advocate for them to have access to marriage.
Anyway, it’s rational, and it allows for support of SSM without all the emotional, touchy feely baggage that Dan insists is part and parcel of SSM.
I would submit that we can't know with certainty the percentage of single homosexuals who act irresponsibly, nor the percentage of "married" homosexuals who act responsibly. More so, we can't determine what percentage are or are not likely to act more responsibly based on the acquisition of legal recognition of their unholy unions. No piece of paper can do that for anyone. It's always a personal choice to live morally or not, to live responsibly or not, to forsake all others for one single, specific and special "other"...or not.
I would therefore argue then that under the best of circumstances, there is no discernable benefit to society for having indulged this selfish demand for legal recognition of their deviant unions. Indeed, we see far more of the opposite as a result of this unconstitutional corruption of marriage. That is, society has clearly been harmed by appeasing these unfortunate reprobates.
Aside from the self-evident disorder, there is little benefit to society in state recognition of NORMAL marriages apart from the children resulting from them. But then, there's nothing disordered about sexual attraction between males and females if procreation is not a factor. They're made for each other. It's inline with the natural order of things. All else being equal, there's no negatives attached to their sexual unions BECAUSE they're made for each other and as such those unions do not cause physical harm.
There's never anything rational about enabling immoral, disordered behavior because doing so ISN'T rational.
Art,
I would submit that it's impossible to ever know with certainty the percentage of people who will change their behavior due to any government action. Having said that, it doesn't alter the fact that my hypothetical provides a logical grounding for ssm, without actually endorsing it, or celebrating it, from a moral standpoint. Further, I'd suggest that any reduction in the negative consequences of a promiscuous sexual lifestyle is beneficial to both the individuals and to society as a whole.
Finally, my purpose in creating the hypothetical wasn't to support ssm, but to point out that there is a logical, reasonable explanation to account for countries allowing ssm, that doesn't automatically mean that the society celebrates ssm. I'm countering Dan's claim that the rainbows and unicorns he's claiming exist, may not actually exist.
"Having said that, it doesn't alter the fact that my hypothetical provides a logical grounding for ssm, without actually endorsing it, or celebrating it, from a moral standpoint."
This is the main point of my dispute. What is or isn't legal absolutely impacts moral perception of a given behavior by the general public. It's not so much about celebrating as it is about legitimizing. In light of this, and with all the negative ramifications that go along with legitimizing bad behavior, it's difficult...impossible, really...to see anything logical or reasonable with arguments favoring SSM on a governmental level. Frankly, I don't think any of them believe it or buy into their own defense of having done so. Even considering how they chose to ignore and dismiss the many negatives that were not only predicted beforehand, but now have manifested, their pro-SSM positions don't hold up as they are all based on less than factual/truthful arguments.
Dan's claims are irrelevant as they are the least fact based of all.
Art,
I think you are over thinking this. Obviously legality provides at least a veneer of moral approval, but that's not what Dan is talking about. I've constructed a hypothetical that potentially explains the actual data, without supporting Dan's absurd list of touchy feely crap.
All I'm saying is that it's theoretically possible to "support" civil ssm, without the emotional tingly feeling down the leg that Dan insists on.
Certainly one needn't be so turned on about as Dan clearly is, but to support it at all does require some of the same if only to a lesser degree or it wouldn't garner any support at all. I guess I could have saved a lot of keystrokes had I thought to express it in this way at the start. I'm just so totally pissed at how this perversion has perverted our culture to the extent it has, and the trouble it's caused to all those who see it for what it is.
Probably. I’m just throwing out a hypothetical that potentially explains the data without the level of excitement that Dan spews.
He's downright giddy.
Yes, he is. You'd think that his position is that all will be right with the world if only everyone would simply embrace SSM with as much enthusiasm as he does.
Post a Comment