Typhon

What challenge? What "ethical system" is this, that supposedly prioritizes such arbitrary black and white concepts as life and liberty?

Here's a scenario even you should be able to understand. Let me tell you a little story:

Because YOU value YOUR life and liberty, you have an interest in preserving it. You however couldn't preserve squat by yourself if I and my war-band came over to your hut. We'd kick your preferences along with your arse all over the local field and back again.

In fact, that's what the thugs from the neighboring village do, on a regular and seasonal basis. So one day, after putting out the fire in your thatch for the last time, and burying your umpteenth son killed defending the speculative virtues of his sister, you gather a group like minded fellows together from your village. You insist that you should all protect your lives and liberties from those nasty warriors in the neighboring village, build a nice wooden wall with a ditch around your village, elect a king, and give a part of your produce to him and his war-band, so they can patrol the wall all day instead of growing their own crops (and because, by now, they might just take them, seeing that they're the ones with weapons).

Of course before long, you all realize the king is a lazy sod, his warriors are always screwing your daughters or leering after your wife, when they're not drunk off your grain or eating like pigs the best of your crop, their horses keep grazing on your fields, and they want more and more in return for their "protection." So, you gather some likeminded members of your community, and either in the dead of night, slit the king's and a few of his body guards' throats, or even sneak over to the next village to hire that war-band that used to cause you so much trouble that you needed a king in the first place to come and run the buggers out.

This goes on, as you try to figure out better and more complex ways of dealing with the thugs that inevitably dispose the previous ones, only to turn out to be as bad or even worse than the last poxy lot. Eventually, you've got a bigger wall, a real army, one that works for pay, important here, not personal loyalty to a king or war-band leader, and you and your fellow civil servants, wealthy landowners, merchants, and tax collectors, control the purse strings and hence the army that protects your life and liberty.

The army of course has to be watched, as do your fellow oligarchs, so over time and generations you adopt a whole lot of rules, complex checks and balances, voting, and after some nose scratching over what to call it, you cry "Eureka!" and slap the name democracy on it.

Now, a couple thousand years later, your descends still prefer their lives and liberty over being dead or someone's agricultural slave, so they take an interest in trying to keep the system, as bad as it is, clunking along. Of course, those in power, naturally try to gather more, not less, as they can eat more, get drunk on your tax dollars, and screw the office secretaries in their fancy retreats out on Martha's Vineyard or in the yachts down on the French Riviera. These folks will do just about anything to keep the millions of tax payers from asking too many questions, accepting the small privileges they are allotted, and feeling safe, even if they are not, from those dreaded Outsiders, who are still always just waiting outside the village wall, no matter how big the village or how tall and well patrolled the wall. In some places, these scoundrels have managed to get things set up so they don't even have to pay much lip service, and just do what they want. They kill a lot of people, have nice palaces for themselves, and use religion and brutal oppression to keep the villagers quiet and paying their protection, er, taxes, on time. Of course other villages always want to invade or steal things from you, so there is a lot of squabbling and sword rattling that you have to do, if you're one of the leaders, it's a tough life, but someone is always willing to kill for the privilege to bear this burden, and frequently do.

Meanwhile back in your village, the rules are getting worse all the time. The last ruler you got, wasn't even voted for by the majority of villagers, but got his cronies in the circle of power, including his crooked brother, to declare him the new leader. There is LOTS of money at stake here, billions and billions, which can pay for just about anything, and which people will do just about anything, and frequently do, to get their hands on it.

There are problems with usual stuff, lots of people grumbling about loss of life and liberty, but it is still better than some of your neighbors, though not as good as others, but hey, who wants to have to move and miss out on 384 channels of cable TV? Oh yeah, and mega-giganto-malls, you hear the neighbors don't have as many of THOSE.

Meanwhile the people in power, including the guy who is more like a dictator than a lot of your past leaders, are getting nervous. They have things they want to do, and oil deals that have billions of dollars and lots of favors (some to people who got them there in the first place) resting on the outcome. So, they make some deals with some of your distant neighbors, ones who generally are even less carrying about your average farmer's preferences for life and liberty, the state of his daughters, the lives of his sons, the lion's share of his crops. The find out these thugs are going to attack, perhaps because the deal goes sour, or just because they don't really like your village all that much in the first place. Your leaders let the attacks happen, fail to post pictures of the known thugs or warn those they think will be attacked. Hell, those damn villagers have been asking WAY too many questions lately, and are starting to wondering what exactly they're being protected from, and why its costing so much.

Some of the villager lose their lives and their liberty, but it's a small loss when placed against the enormous gain. Now those in power can do what they want, because all the villagers are now screaming predictably for the head of the neighbors on a plate, not asking tough questions or demanding MORE life and liberty. Hell, they're even demanding that they have less liberty, if said leaders promise them they're more likely to keep their lives. It's all a dream come true.

Armies are sent, the neighbors get squashed, the oil deal is saved, and now the leaders have more of their villagers' liberty in their own pocket, and just as much of their taxes as ever, while damn foolish farmers are all but weeping tears of joy for the privilege of being so used. Life is grand. Good thing that life and liberty are such easy, and non-complicated ethical questions. You'd hate to live someplace where those godless heathens didn't have a clue about it. Uh, wait a minute…

Breath a sigh or relief Dave, the world's a simple place, just repeat that mantra till you feel better.

Dictators are everywhere Dave, some of them claim to be elected by popular vote (often) others at least are honest about just being thugs. Some of the world's current worst abusers even claim they're doing god's will, others say the same, but call god Allah or other names. Again…

What the hell is your point here? All people, of differing faiths and differing cultures, generally prefer life and liberty over death and agricultural or global corporate slavery. Some claim this right comes from their god/religion, others from the fact that human beings not only enjoy these things, but require them to personally flourish. The fact is, not all places on the globe equally provide these two to their captive populations. That's just the way of the world, and has been since the first village of farmers hired the first king to protect them from the thugs in the next cluster of huts.

Suicidal religious martyrs are nothing new. Christianity is built on a throne of them, bodies stacked like cordwood a mile high. Eyeless skulls grinning into eternity pave the path for all religions.

There are Christian terrorists. There are Muslim terrorists. There are Jewish terrorists. There are Hindu terrorists. There are Buddhist terrorists. There are blinking ecological, animal rights, sandal wearing, vegetarian terrorists. There are anti-global, anti-corporate, secular terrorists.

Which one of these groups is MORE moral or ethical than the others? Do you believe in the validity of Christian martyrdom? If then, why is it any better than any other sort?

I don't believe in the validity of ANY religious theories of martyrdom, so there fore I HIGHLY object to any given system which blows my bloody head off.

.T.

[ June 06, 2002: Message edited by: Typhon ]</p>

Jack the Bodiless

Good post! It sums up the pragmatic social origin of a moral code pretty well.

As I'm sure we haven't heard the last of Dave's "why should I behave morally?" bleating, I'd like to revisit my "five reasons":
It is entirely correct to point out that not every human being on Earth is bound by all five reasons. However:

1. Applies to everyone who isn't a masochist. You would have to enjoy being unpopular to not be bound by this one.

2. Some people appear to lack a sense of empathy with their fellow humans (Hitler, Stalin, serial killers, Christian presuppositionalists). They are collectively known as psychopaths. However, they are a small minority.

3. To escape social conditioning, we'll have to assume a person who has been raised by obedient robots on an otherwise deserted island somewhere.

4. If a person has no fear of enemies, he must have the largest and most loyal secret police force the world has ever seen.

5. Our hero also has to be above the law.

Now, Dave, I am perfectly prepared to agree that a masochistic, psychopathic dictator-for-life on a desert island surrounded by an army of loyal killer robots does NOT have any reason to behave morally under atheistic metaphysical naturalism. However, I would appreciate details of an actual masochistic, psychopathic dictator-for-life on a desert island surrounded by an army of loyal killer robots who behaves morally because of Christian theism.

Or can I deduce, from your own apparent inability to see any other reason to behave morally, that you consider yourself to be a masochistic, psychopathic dictator-for-life on a desert island surrounded by an army of loyal killer robots?

Pomp

Nice posts, Typhon, Jack!

Dave, the thoughts expressed in these recent responses to you illuminate a point I have tried to make several times. When you say that we cannot "account for" morality as metaphysical naturalists, you are saying, I believe, that we cannot demonstrate that any given system of ethics is objectively and absolutely true. You may or may not be correct, but it's not relevant. We can certainly "account for" morality in the sense that we can, as Typhon and jack have done, explain why human beings possess what might be called a moral sense. Whether or not this sense is "correct" in any absolute sense is not, in my view, a productive question to ask.

rainbow walking

Dave: how does this follow from what was said? Indeed, humans are the objects of the standards, but it does not follow that the humans, therefore, are the ground of those standards.

Rw: Why does it not follow? It is the only possible, reasonable conclusion available. To invent an invisible deity and attribute what is good or evil for humans to this deity, who has no vested interest whatsoever (by virtue of all his alleged omnimax attributes), is to abrogate ones own responsibility to oneself and ones fellows. And you still haven’t provided one single standard of this alleged “good” you claim your god has established on our behalf.

Dave: Just the opposite. The ground of the standards that men must follow must be transcendent to men - otherwise one may choose from any number of differing behaviors or values that different humans hold to. Life and liberty are certainly not universal virtues.

Rw: If one does not possess life or liberty of what value are morals? Can a dead man or a slave choose from various moral expressions? The fact is, life and liberty are absolutely essentially the ground of all proper moral dictates. The pursuit of one’s happiness is the highest expression of them. Any moral code that does not hold the life and liberty of its constituency as the absolute vital ground of its purpose for existence is not moral. Your contention that this code must exist transcendentally is to shift the responsibility for its establishment to something other than humanity. Life and liberty are not virtues to be practiced at whim; they are absolute necessities and the grounding of any viable moral code.


Dave: your utilitarianism ("maximum effectiveness") begs more questions than it answers. What, precisely, is the criteria of effectiveness?

Rw: Why do you keep asking the same questions over and over? For the umpteenth time, the criteria for “effectiveness” is the promotion of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Now if these aren’t sufficient groundings for you, why not humor me and present your groundwork for maximum results and criteria for effectiveness.

Dave: What about inter-communal ethics?

Rw: Nothing changes Dave, whether you’re talking individual, community, inter-community or nationally.


Dave: you are missing the argument. We posit God's existence because His existence is the NECESSARY precondition for non-arbitrary ethics. That is the proof. It is not just a presupposition, it is a necessary one.

Rw: Number one, life and freedom are the only necessary preconditions to any ethical standard or system.

Number two, an imaginary god is not necessary to the life or liberty of anyone, in fact, it is antithetical to these primary foundations.

Number three, because such a being is not necessary, presupposing it thusly is arguing in circles… a major fallacy.

Number four, there are no non-arbitrary ethics and quoting scriptures from an antiquated book (whose authenticity remains highly questionable) doesn’t make its claims non-arbitrary…unless you wish to posit that dictates established by a semi-nomadic tribe of the Bronze age are to be considered non-arbitrary.

There are only two non-arbitrary necessities based on man’s nature: Life and Liberty. Just in case you decide to, once again, ask me why life and liberty, I’ll pre-respond to the anticipated question that because they are consistent with man’s nature, hard-wired into his psyche and necessary to any ethical standard or moral system. What are the alternatives to life and liberty? Death and slavery.


Dave: wrong, epistemology is what governs the interpretation of fact. It is not grounded in fact.

Rw: Ah…so one’s epistemological presuppositions can be grounded in fiction and still produce valid interpretations of the facts? I ask you again; have you established god’s existence as a fact or logical necessity?


Dave: we have "connected the dots" by pointing out that God's existence is necessary for particular knowledge forms.

Rw: And you’ve supported this assertion…how? Neither ethics nor logic require a god and just saying it don’t make it so. Systems of behavior and thought are devised by men and defended by men. No evidence of a god or necessity of one.

Let’s consider the dots. Dot number one: Humans, by nature, are community creatures. No god required.

Dot number two: Community creatures require ethical standards consistent to their natures that promote individual and community existence. No god required.

Dot number three: Humans are observed to be the ones establishing their own ethics and defending them. Again, no god required or available for comment.

Dot number four: The basic foundational standards, consistent to human nature and behavior, are the twin standards of LIFE and LIBERTY. Again, no god required or needed.

Where, exactly, in all of this do you require a god?

Dave: Specifically, we have been discussing ethical norms. Logic is another form (God's omnipotence and providence accounts for an ordered universe w/ humans who can think- thus logic is possible).

Rw: And yet another unsupported assertion emerges. Without any evidence to support your contention that the universe is a product of your god’s benevolence or un-limited power, you are doing nothing but speculating. If you are tooting god’s horn because of the mechanistic nature of this universe didn’t you forget to include this imaginary god’s omniscience? Does order come from power or intelligence? The only order found in the universe is in time and existence, neither of which regulate anything. The properties associated with matter are in a constant state of flux, dependent upon the accumulation of particles into specific shapes and forms, all of which is determined by their proximity to one another, which is itself a matter of chance and happenstance. Flux and design are antithetical. If your invisible sky daddy was so interested in promoting his creative genius he should have stamped his logo on a few particles hither and yon just to clue us in on his handiwork. As it stands now the universe, nor any aspect of it, has given up a single verifiable clue that it was the product of omni-maxiness or deityness. It’s current configuration appears to be a product of time and existence. Time manifested in evolution and existence manifested in change and conflict. Presupposing the existence of a god is neither logical nor necessary. The mechanism doesn’t require one.

Dave: why should I believe that "life and liberty" is a proper foundation?

Rw: What are the alternatives, death and slavery? How do you propose to establish an ethical system on death and slavery?

Dave: Why should I adopt this ethical principle over, say, the ethical system of bin Laden et al.?

Rw: If you prefer Bin Laden’s lifestyle you are FREE to chase him thru the swamps and mountainous terrain in his effort to evade the justice that will surely bring him down. No matter what ethical system you choose, as a human, life and liberty will be necessary to the choosing. Why complicate necessities beyond reason? What is wrong with life and liberty as your moral foundation? It is an inescapable prerequisite to choosing anything anyway. What is wrong with expressing your nature in the pursuit of happiness? Would you prefer misery?


Dave: I think you are confusing arbitrariness (irrationality, unjustified thought) with subjective arbitration (decision-making). Arbitrartion is not necessarily arbitrary.

Rw: This is true and I apologize for the confusion. What I mean by arbitrary is decision making.


Dave: that is quite wrong. Consequences, by themselves, carry no innate value. They have to be interpreted by an a priori ethical system. Otherwise there is nothing to tell you what a "good" vs. "bad" consequence is.

Rw: This is pure fantasy. Consequences are the means of gaining experience. Experience is the basis of practical application of all ethical systems. There is no such thing as an a priori ethical system. Life and liberty are a posteriori consequences of a proper ethical system. Particular norms and morals that feed this system will generate its standards as a consequence and define what is good or bad for its constituency. Any moral system not based on these twin pillars will fail and its constituency will perish or change their system. A proper ethical system will be put to the test, for sure, and will have to be open to refinement, but the basics cannot be abandoned and the system remain proper or ethical. The only interpretation required in a proper ethical system is the establishment of balance between the individual and the community.


[b]

Dave: you still haven't given us a reason to value life and liberty.

Rw: One damn good reason is that the only alternative is death and slavery. Would you have us assign a positive value to death and slavery over life and liberty? Well, yes you would. Not directly but as a final result. Duping a majority of a community into abrogating their responsibilities and conferring them upon an invisible sky daddy produces the effect of relaxing ones intellectual integrity. Eventually one of the good ole boys from your cult will screw up the balls to step forward and claim his right to speak for your deity and not long after that we will have the makings of another Bin Laden and death and slavery will soon follow. Women forced to live like animals; Men who only labor to build war machines against his neighbors; Teachers influencing the youth to sacrifice their lives for this deity. It all flows from this basic presuppositional bullshit.


Dave: "maximum results" is question-begging. Precisely, what sort of results?

Rw: Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Do you find those unsatisfactory?

Dave: Furthermore, if universal (objective) norms do not exist, you have no basis to differentiate between a "virtue" or "vice." Whatever happens just happens - no goodness or badness about it.

Rw: Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are universal norms consistent to human nature. Ones method of pursuing these experiences will determine if his methodology is expressed as a vice or virtue. Humans have determined that they are worthy and have a right to these experiences. That is all the universal objectivity needed.


Dave: which tradition? Whose experience?

Rw: I believe the American tradition has actualized these twin pillars. The American people personify the experience and the two, taken together, have served to out-distance any and all other ethical systems derived from inferior or especially religious traditions and experiences.

Dave: What interpretive framework and criteria are used to analyze these two things?

Rw: Maximum results Dave, what else?


Dave: this does not take into account those who are suicidal.

Rw: Why should it? Freedom ought to mandate ones right to end ones life if that is ones prerogative.

Dave: Not only that, but everything you just said is descriptive. You have told us about genetics and what not. That is not prescriptive. Thus, there is no ethical system. You are going to have to get beyond "is"-ness to "ought"-ness.

Rw: The specifics are just as easily fleshed out Dave. Besides, why should I when you haven’t done so either. I asked you several pages back for some precise details of your ethical system and all you did was evade the question. One of the basic oughts of my system is that no law shall be passed respecting a particular religion or religious tenet. Our founding fathers had the foresight to establish this within the framework of our constitution and it has protected us from the rabid cult leaders down through the years. There’s your tradition, pal.


Dave: still question-begging. What is the criteria that determines what a "defect" or "mistake, error" etc. is? You have provided us with antonyms to "perfect", not a workable philosophy of value.

Rw: I have no intention of providing a workable philosophy of value based on perfection. It’s another one of your cults pipe dreams. Using your philosophy define perfection without circling around and pointing at the word “god” as though it were anything meaningful as part of a workable philosophy.

Dave: atheists are not always peaceful at all. The rejection of God has been one of the core tenants of historic Communism, for example.

Rw: They promoted atheism at the point of a gun and reduced their nation to a shambles in less than a century. It was the use of force that destroyed their community, not atheism. Do you imagine theism would fare any better forced upon the populace? When are you going to substantiate your premises? You appear to be big on pint sized challenges and short on answers. Where’s the beef?


Dave: really, chance has causal powers? Even if you could defend this supposition, it still leaves you with an inability for "regulation" to exist, since chance is inherently antithetical to order or regulation of any kind!

Rw: What is the purpose of “regulation” ? Were it not for the un-predictability factor regulation wouldn’t be necessary. Chance forces regulation to countermand its effects.


Dave: chance "forces its antithesis"? How does chance turn into its opposite - order?

Rw: Two ways: Survival of the fittest and intelligent design. The first is a product of nature and the second a product of humanity. Humanity is reaching a level of intelligence where we are struggling to divest ourselves of the basic genetic forces that were required to bring us this far.

Dave: If your theory of knowledge can tolerate concepts turning into their opposites, you have destroyed any hope of coherent thinking at all.

Rw: Then you are incapable of thinking coherently outside of your masters box.

Dave: Secondly, I don't know how any of this would compel us to "plan and think" - nor does it provide us a basis or framework with which to plan.

Rw: Faced with the challenge to accomplish any single task and armed with the understanding that there is a CHANCE that our labors may not produce the desired results behooves us to PLAN (which requires thinking) and allow for possible chance events thwarting our goals. Ignore the probabilities and suffer the consequences.


Dave: more vague talk about "maximum results". And you are still not going beyond a description of what happens - rather than what OUGHT to happen (prescriptive).

Rw: How many times do I have to repeat myself? Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is what ought to happen. It is a prescription for peace, joy and happiness.

Dave: On what epistemological basis does a community filled with conflicting norms come to agreement?

Rw: On the basis that humans are worthy to experience life, liberty and to pursue their dreams.

Dave: Why do and SHOULD some norms win out over others?

Rw: Because they facilitate maximum results in attaining to the above.


Dave: it is hardly "intelligent arbitration" if your system relies on preferences and nothing more, as your system entails.

Rw: I’m sorry Dave but life and liberty are necessary essentials and not preferences. It is the most consistent experience of human nature un-leashed to fulfill its destiny.


Dave: Ok, we should make comparisons - but what is the substance that validates a given system?

Rw: Substance? The fulfillment of human aspirations via life and liberty. Maximum results for its constituency.


Dave: many people don't value life and liberty as you do. Why should I choose your system of values of theirs?

Rw: If you weren’t borrowing your power to choose from my liberty you wouldn’t have a choice. If you weren’t borrowing your life from my goal to live the question would be a moot issue. No matter what other system is enabled it necessarily requires its constituency to choose to comply or rebel and must borrow from my system to continue to function. Any system not founded on these two axioms will eventually lead to revolt, death and suffering to the community that enabled it. Anyone who doesn’t value life and liberty is not worthy of either. I also dispute your claim that “many people” don’t value life and liberty. Could you give us an example?


Dave: and the legal system is derived from what basis?

Rw: Statutory law is derived from moral law.

Dave: Experience is interpreted using what criteria and methodology?

Rw: Success or failure of the community and the individual at fulfilling its aspirations.

Dave: Maximum results is defined according to what?

Rw: Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Dave: More questions than answers, as usual.

Rw: (sigh) Typical evasion of the obvious and redundancy of the ignorance.


Dave: many would disagree, and think that tyranny is a great alternative.

Rw: Oh, bullshit. Listen Dave, why don’t you admit it. I’ve got you grasping at straws like a drowning cat. Now you’re just posting unsupportable crap to make it appear you’ve got a defense. No one in their right mind would knowingly choose tyranny. Many people have been FORCED to live under its despotic rule and could do nothing because they were paralyzed by fear. Many more have died trying to escape its wicked grasp. Only the tyrant prospers from such a system but not for long.

Dave: and what determines which consequences or results are desirable or "maximum"??

Rw: The fulfillment of the constituency.

Dave: What criteria is in place to determine this, using what methodology?

Rw: The American Constitution, legal and political system.

Dave: You are going in circles, answering nothing.

Rw: Yeah, I am circling your lame ass arguments like a falcon waiting for the precise moment to swoop in for the kill Dave. You keep asking the same questions over and over like a broken record. You imagine your undefined moral system is somehow superior because you’ve out-sourced it and just can’t believe I’ve crippled your shipment so easily. You’ve heard it said somewhere that atheists have no basis for right and wrong independent of your make believe god and are disturbed when one chews up your presupps and spits them out like a peach pit. So now you’re floundering for balance and grasping at straws pretending that my answers aren’t valid and that America isn’t a land that has made those answers valid. You really want to believe that humans are inferior creatures and can’t take responsibility for their own lives without joining your cult and paying homage to your token gods. Connect the dots as I have Dave, if you can. Don’t just make baseless un-supported assertions and think you’ve covered your ass by claiming them to be presuppositions. Show me why this god of yours is necessary at all. Don’t just assert it, lay it out in a syllogism. Just because you believe your god is real and all these things you claim he is and can do are necessarily real because you want him to be real don’t make it so Dave. If your god is real or really necessary you should have something to substantiate the claim besides more baseless assertions. I’ve supported my arguments with real life American drama. What do your presupps have to offer us in this life? All they promise are some pie-in-the-sky rewards after we die or an eternity in hell. And you still have to appeal to a man’s selfish nature or scare the shit out of him to delude him into joining your cult. Why do you think men would covet eternal life? Because they like the one they’ve got and don’t want it to end? Where’s the love, Dave.


Dave: God's existence entail that his "say-so" is not arbitrary.

Rw: Oh, did we establish his existence already?

Dave: You aren't thinking through, consistently, the implications of His existence.

Rw: That’s because you haven’t established any other than I’m going to hell in a hand basket. That reeaaally makes me want to join your choir.

Dave: If God exists, then He is good and just - thus His decrees would not be arbitrary.

Rw: Riiight…and would that goodness and justness mean that he saw no grounds for eschewing the Hebrews over slavery? Oh wait, they were his arbitrarily chosen people, right? No, they weren’t arbitrarily chosen, they just happened to be in the right place at the right time.

Dave: Secondly, God's existence is proven by the aforementioned means (His existence being necessary to knowledge)

Rw: Dave, Dave, Dave…you can’t seriously expect me to take your word for this. And where, exactly, did we establish that the universe was created? Another of your arbitrary assertions perhaps?


Dave: you obviously still don't understand the nature of transcendental argumentation. My assertions are not ‘baseless'. They come from my worldview.

Rw: Then your worldview is baseless.

Dave: They are the presuppositions of my thought.

Rw: Then your thoughts are baseless.

Dave: My worldview, as a whole, is proven by the fact that it is a necessary worldview to account for knowledge.

Rw: And it fails to account for knowledge, ethics or justice or to establish the necessity of a god to account for them.

Dave: Thus, I expound my worldview (what you call baseless assertions) in order to show how they lead to knowledge.

Rw: And show how they lead to contradiction and inconsistency.

Dave: I, likewise, critique your worldview (on its own terms) to show that it cannot lead to knowledge.

Rw: And have failed miserably.

Dave: So we are comparing worldviews ON THEIR OWN TERMS.

Rw: Wrong again. You are attempting to establish the terms in your presuppositions. I haven’t allowed it. You don’t like it.

Dave: This is not "question-begging" (because circular argumentation in epistemology is not a fallacy). Nor is it "baseless assertions." It is presuppositional critiquing.

Rw: And your presuppositions do not lead to a valid epistemology of its own because they require you to pre-empt my own epistemology without making any cogent connection that supports the pre-emptiveness outside of your say-so. Further more the ontologics are not verifiable and must appeal to naturalistic ontological connectives for validation, which it fails to do. Your deductions degenerate in proportion to your premises when submitted to critical review so you end up circling my arguments claiming their postulates as evidence of your god without lifting a meta-physical finger to show why I should allow these acts of skullduggery as anything resembling philosophical debate. To sum it all up in the shell of a nut: Get a real live god to defend because I’ve got a real live universe to substantiate my claims.


Dave: obviously certain ethics have been "hard wired" into some people that disagree with your ethical system. So how can you object to their hard-wired ethics?

Rw: Everyone is hard-wired for survival. If cultural or environmental pressures short circuit the wiring this isn’t an indictment against the ethic but against those pressures that caused the short circuit. So your claim is specious.


Dave: pointing out that YOU made an unsupported statement is hardly "evasion"!

Rw: Really? I made an unsupported assertion? Well I appreciate you supporting it for me since you failed to list one single specific of your alleged moral code, apparently I hit the nail right on the head.


Dave: of course it is.

Rw: Then why aren’t you Christians lobbying congress for a law to be passed allowing you to purchase slaves as long as you tailor their ownership after the fashion of the Hebrews and not the Romans? (Hell, maybe they are. Who knows these days) So am I to take this as an example of the moral strictures your god has established as superior to humanities?


Dave: the differentiation between fact and fiction is guided by one's presuppositions. You have it backwards.

Rw: Then allow me to re-word the question: Why should I presuppose the bible as a viable source of truth?

Dave: the Bible is a definite, fixed work of literature. How more "specific" do you want it?

Rw: Oh, come on Dave, you know full well I wasn’t asking you to define the bible. I want the specific moral strictures, chapter and verse, that you claim are the do-all end-all of morality for humans.


Dave: you were the one who originally made the generalization reguarding God. You tell me.

Rw: O’kay, if you insist. Since no definition of god has ever been established without contradiction or been divested of the inherent inconsistencies, no possible conceptualization of the term is available from which to launch any meaningful ethical system. Because humans have the uncanny ability to ignore contradiction and inconsistency they can fill in the blanks with make believe and create a god concept to facilitate their wishful thinking and label it presuppositions. This lends it a credibility it hasn’t earned but they don’t seem to notice or mind the dissonance between reality and their make believe world of gods and demons. As long as they get a turn at redefining terms and re-interpreting scriptures and circumstances to make it appear that their imaginary god had a hand in what ever it is they are claiming. Want me to go on? I thought so. Dave is just one of a multitude of people unable to cope with a reality that thrusts them into the combine of conflict and change; who absolutely has to have a prescribed purpose for it other than the naked truth that his life is all the time he’ll get so he has joined himself to the fray of invention which has become the mother of necessity in a mind divested of the value of self. Divorced from the responsibility of creating his own reason for being, he now feels a great burden has been lifted from his mind and he can begin his new role as an evangelist confident of his heavenly rewards in the hereafter. Fully persuaded that his presuppositions are founded on truth and grounded in a higher reality he is now armed and ready to do mortal combat with the evil atheist to show him the error of his ways.

Dave: you are quite confused, friend. You said that red as an attribute "requires visibility". That is not what is being discussed. We are discussing the nature of an abstract attribute itself - not what it "requires" or not.

Rw: Uh, sorry Dave, but the “nature” of something is the same as what is required for it to actually exist and function. Invisibility is not a prerequisite of an abstract attribute.

Dave: like I said, the human brain facilitates thought. Thought is a function of the brain, but thought is not an attribute of the brain itself. You can say that grayness or sponginess is an attribute of the brain.

Rw: You can also say that human thought is ATTRIBUTED to the brain, thus it is an attribute of it.


Dave: since your "nature" seems to include only material existence, my criticism stands.

Rw: What criticism is that Dave? That nature has not revealed any evidence of your god? Is that somehow my fault?


Dave: and you have given us no reason to define "bad" as such.


Rw: You mean I haven’t succumbed to your unsupported assertion that your god is the basis of all good or bad? Then you would define things that harm or enslave as good if your god deemed it so? These things are part of man’s nature, self evident and need no reason outside of man himself to justify or objectify them.


Dave: how can bundles of matter and chemicals have "wills" or "empathize"?

Rw: Via evolutionary triggers.

Dave: What makes our sack of chemicals any different from any other?

Rw: Their particular and specific configuration. What makes you speak of humanity in such obviously derogatory tones?


Dave: but merely "defining areas of human behavior that will elicit unfavorable consequences" does not itself provide any means of certain prevention! Not only that, but this entails that there is no such thing as moral guilt and it makes retributive justice impossible.

Rw: Dave! Did you not read the last six word sentence at the end of the paragraph? The one about derived statutory law? Guilt is imposed upon conviction and conviction is the jurisprudence of statutory law empowered by moral strictures.


Dave: it is not a "when", it's a place called hell.

Rw: So your god isn’t personally involved with this universe. He’s just laying back in the cut waiting on us to die so he can snatch us up, shake us like a rag doll and violently toss us into the pits of hell for… what reason was that again…?


Dave: apparently bin Laden didn't really care about "images of you." Why should he?

Rw: What is apparent is that BL didn’t think his acts would be reciprocated. That “images of me” would make the commitment to turn his private fiefdom into a nightmare and drive his cowardly stinking ass into the catacombs. He seriously under-estimated the long arm of LIFE and LIBERTY and now he’s paying the price.

Dave: You haven't given me any reason to adopt your ethics above his.


Rw: Do you think that pissant has any ethics? Go join the sackhead. The two of you can compare sky daddies under a cave ceiling and carve your initials in the rock while you’re waiting on a US Marine to frag your ass into the arms of your beloved charm queens. Pack light and grow a beard before you leave. I hear they frown on baby faces.


Dave: but humans, and thus the image of God, has been marred by sin. Thus, God is right to judge and pour out wrath. Nonetheless, God's image remains faintly, and thus we retain real value.

Rw: And what is sin? The circularity just gets tighter. I would say the image of humans has been marred by your god. What exactly is this “image of god” you keep alluding to anyway? Has anyone ever seen it? Or defined it?


Dave: that is unless, of course, sin exists (as we contend).

Rw: Of course, and that depends on your god existing (as you also contend) but never actually get around to establishing as anything more than wishful thinking.

Dave: how does this follow?

Rw: People don’t want to be murdered Dave, especially people who enjoy their lives. People who have not actualized their own self worth have little or no concept of happiness which reinforces ones appreciation of life. Not being able to appreciate their own lives they are blinded to the possibility that such appreciation might extend to their victims. Sometimes this blindness and frustration erupts into unmitigated violence or premeditated murder.


Dave: some people don't have any values to anyone else.

Rw: And your point being?


Dave: I don't know why you assume that those who have no self-worth are uniquely capable of murder.

Rw: See explanation above…

Dave: Nor do I see why some with no self-worth can't just keep to themselves in a back alley or gutter - or Manhattan condo, for that matter.

Rw: Never said they couldn’t. In fact, I hope they do. But I hope more that they will find their self value.


Dave: why is the humanity of others as valuable as my humanity?

Rw: Because, by nature, you are a community creature.

Dave: Perhaps "survival of the fittest" would dictate that certain people be wiped out for the "interest of the community".

Rw: The “fittest” need not resort to such measures. Only when their lives are threatened is deadly force justified to ensure their survival. Survival of the fittest insures survival of the less fit when the fittest have attained to their self worth. Ever heard a truly gifted musician or witnessed a talented tradesman at his trade? The cream of the crop provide us all with aspirations and empower our dreams of what greatness is. We don’t need the image of your god or perfection or non-arbitrary morals or original sin or heaven or hell to regulate our behavior. We will regulate our behavior and mature as a species without your god. Quid pro quo Dave. Give Bin Laden the finger for me.

Megatron

I never thought I'd say this, but... Excellent post, RW!!

I especially love the ending...

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />