Jason Streitfeld left a comment on the last post. I'd use the more conventional word "responded", except he didn't really do that.
Given his apparently bulletproof penchant for "I say it, therefore that's the way it is,"-type statements, one wonders whether he is a convert to atheism out of the Tony Alamo school of "Christianity", or was previously a disciple of one of those screaming preacher types who goes to university campuses and harangues the student passers-by with indiscriminate promises of Hell as final destination, near-universal refusal to engage in dialogue, stubborn conviction of Pelagian sinlessness, and utter cluelessness as to grace, tact, and irony.
I say this because his "rebuttals" never get beyond the level of naked pontification. If anyone is inclined to bow down and give his undying allegiance to Jason, I guess this kind of decree-from-on-high might be convincing.
Hi Jason,
I'll take your points as numbered.
1) Yes, I suppose I might be wrong. Up to the dissenter to provide an argument for that.
Knowing sthg "100%" is a bit unclear - how does that differ from knowing sthg infallibly? Just for the sake of argument, I'll say yes, I know 100% that all humans are created in God's image, b/c the Bible says so.
No need to go by DNA - that wouldn't have been available for most of human history. It's pretty easy - if an organism looks like a human and is the product of the union from two human parents, that organism is human. Sometimes a spade really is a spade. Humanity is a matter of ontology, not performance.
Chimp DNA is not close enough, no. And it doesn't matter what anyone THINKS - it remains true that a Jewish person is a human made in the image of God.
2) If you really recognise the is/ought distinction, I'd expect you to act consistently with that recognition, but I see virtually no such recognition in your writing.
Amazingly, though I've taken great pains to explain why your bogus "explanation" of how reason "informs" morality and how unreliable emotions are, you simply point me back to what you've already said. No need to go further here - feel free to engage the arguments anytime. You have a whole holiday weekend to do so.
3)Of course, we do care about lots of things. We wouldn't have survived natural selection if we didn't.
And? More is/ought conflation. This is precisely what I mean. Tell me WHY we OUGHT TO care about things, one thing, anything.
And the fact that we don't always agree only indicates that it takes work to live together.
Which speaks not at all to whether we OUGHT TO WANT TO live together. You're a walking begged question.
That's what morality is about--working together and getting along.
The great Pontifex Jason hath so decreed it, eh?
What is your argument for that? I don't grant that in the slightest.
I've explained at length why your assertion that "Christianity can" is, at best, unfounded, and at worst, a threat to the very well being of humanity.
*snort* As close as you've come is to make an vague and rather gauche assertion that God is by definition incoherent. Anyone can play that game. Materialistic atheism is by definition incoherent. Anyway, like I said, I'll get to that later.
Let me try to help you understand. Humor me for a moment. Pretend, just for the sake of argument, that Christianity is true. In what way, according to Christian teaching (aka, performing an internal critique) does Christianity fail to fulfill this? Prove your assertion, and remember - since this is an internal critique, you can have no recourse to your (question-begging) personal moral convictions.
I think I speak for most everyone reading when I say that no one cares about what YOU think on what is good and what is bad. We want to see ARGUMENTS.
I've also explained at length how my understanding of morality does, in fact, allow for objective moral judgments.
If you're not planning to interact with my numerous rebuttals on that score, I'm more than happy to leave that point where it is.
The irrational approach negates the very possibility of discourse, and so it is antagonistic to morality.
Make an argument!!!!! An argument!!! It's as if you've never heard the word "argument" before.
Let me try to help. Answer these questions:
1. Is it bad to be antagonistic to "morality"?
2. How do you know?
3. Why is it bad?
4. Why is discourse an integral part of morality?
5. How do you know that?
Answer those questions and it'll be a start. And seriously, spare me the naked assertions and "Well, that's just how it is" that you've been feeding up to this point.
And I can say, objectively, for rational agents at all times and places, that an approach to morality which rejects the possibility of negotiating values is immoral.
How do you know?
Are you not going to interact with the numerous rebuttals I posted on this very topic?
4 comments:
Rhology,
You asked me to tell you "why we ought to care about things."
Your idea, I presume, is that if our interest in the world is not justified by something else, then our interest cannot be the foundation for a moral system.
I don't accept your premise. Why should I?
You are working under the assumption that moral questions must be answerable by some standard which is "good" in itself, without reference to any particular set of interests.
And you say that your God is a moral authority because God's interests are Good in themselves. Well, why should I accept that, especially since (as you know) the term "God" is incoherently defined?
The very idea of "good in itself" is incoherent, because it admits of no frame of reference.
The basic problem is, we are using the term "morality" to mean two different things.
For you, morality is just playing by God's rules. For me, morality is aiming for the most justifiable position available.
You don't seem interested in justifying your position. Instead, you are only interested in assuming it is correct. I would be much more willing to take your position seriously if it weren't incoherent.
How do I justify my position? That is, how do I justify my view that morality is about working together to find the most justifiable positions available?
Because that position describes our moral instincts and our moralizing processes without recourse to incoherent entities. My view makes sense, and it fits the available evidence. Your view doesn't make sense, and it isn't supported by evidence.
You ask me to just assume, hypothetically, that Christianity were true. Well, honestly, I can't, because Christianity is founded upon incoherent terms. I cannot even hypothetically assume Christianity is true, because Christianity doesn't make sense.
You may as well ask me to temporarily suppose that "in blue ambulatory with massage and purple mustang, although not, and entirely because" were true.
By the way, I live in Poland. We don't get time off for Thanksgiving here.
Oh, and you totally missed my point about "God's Image."
You see, your definition of "human" seems to be based on the idea of "God's image."
Or do you define "human" in terms of DNA?
It's not clear.
If you define "human" in terms of "God's image," then how do you decide what is human? How is "God's image" a standard for measurement here?
If you don't define "human" in terms of God's image, then how do you define it?
By DNA?
How is your position different than the Nazis?
If human is defined by DNA, so that "God's image" is recognizable by DNA, then you have to decide: what DNA should we count as human, and so regard as "God's image?"
If human is defined by "God's image," then you have to decide: how do we decide what counts as "God's image," and how should we relate that to different organisms, such as people of various ethinic backgrounds, chimpanzees, or cats and dogs?
Your position doesn't seem to offer any answers here. It makes your view of humanity about as arbitrary as the Nazis', I think.
Oh, and these questions do deserve a response:
"1. Is it bad to be antagonistic to "morality"?
2. How do you know?
3. Why is it bad?"
Again, in my view, morality is the process of aiming for the most justifiable position available.
If one is antagonistic towards this process, then one is opposed to the very search for justifications.
If one's view is opposed to the search for justifications, then one's view is opposed to justification itself.
If one's view is opposed to justification, then one's view cannot be justified. (For, to justify it would be to present a justification, and it exactly what is being opposed.)
If one's view cannot be justified, it is, by definition, "bad."
See?
It's simple logic.
Hi Jason,
Is it true that you're an ESL teacher? I read someone say that...
I've been an ESL teacher overseas myself. How long have you been over there, if you don't mind? Of course, if you don't want to share, I won't be offended - this IS the Internet after all. ;-)
if our interest in the world is not justified by something else, then our interest cannot be the foundation for a moral system.
1) But WHY SHOULD my interest in the world be the foundation? I'm looking for a good REASON for that.
2) You may have noticed, if you ever read the news, that disparate interests exist in diff people. Somali pirates' interest is in stealing oil tankers. OPEC doesn't want them to.
Phred Felps wants to picket dead soldiers' funerals and announce that they are certain that said soldiers are burning in Hell, while the families don't want them to.
I accuse aborticians of murder, while pro-baby-murder activists think I'm a dangerous freaky fundamentalist that should be silenced.
So who's right and how do we know? Each is expressing his interest.
You are working under the assumption that moral questions must be answerable by some standard which is "good" in itself, without reference to any particular set of interests.
You have forgotten that you yourself take the same assumption - namely, that referring morality to a particular set of interests is good in itself. The difference between us is that I've thought my position (and yours) out to their logical conclusions, and you're only halfway there.
you say God is a moral authority because God's interests are Good in themselves. why should I accept that, especially since (as you know) the term "God" is incoherently defined?
1) On Christianity, He is.
On atheism, there is no moral authority at all, so...
2) Your claim about God's incoherent definition is being pwnd over at the Triablogue. Have you ever heard the term "systematic theology"? I can recommend a decent primer. Far more ink has been spilled on the topic of God's definition than has ever been on your novel idea of materialism.
The very idea of "good in itself" is incoherent, because it admits of no frame of reference.
I presume, then, that "our interest as foundation for a moral system" is not good at all.
What good (pardon the pun) is it, then?
For you, morality is just playing by God's rules.
No, read my post on the topic again. I reserve the right to correct you when you misstate my position, and you certainly have.
morality is aiming for the most justifiable position available.
Which is apparently not good, though, according to what you said above. How about that? A morality devoid of any judgment on what is good and bad. Sounds suspiciously like no morality at all.
You ask me to just assume, hypothetically, that Christianity were true.
You have demonstrated over and over again your inability to understand the difference between internal and external critique.
I am firmly convinced that atheism is founded on incoherency, but that doesn't stop ME from making internal critiques of it. All I can do is link to the post that explains it and hope that someday you'll get it.
You may as well ask me to temporarily suppose that "in blue ambulatory with massage and purple mustang, although not, and entirely because" were true.
Funny - that's exactly the kind of thinking that we're left with if we take your position on the laws of logic.
-----
Or do you define "human" in terms of DNA?
No, it's not the definition, but it's certainly one marker, one indicator.
Human is a kind. Seriously, Jason, no one is confused about whether a given organism is a:
human or a banana
human or a chimp
human or an elephant
human or a cucumber
human or a paramecium
human or a dinosaur
How is your position different than the Nazis?
B/c I see a human and think "human. Therefore, this human is entitled to the protections afforded him by the commands of God wrt treatment of fellow humans."
Nazis saw CERTAIN humans and thought "Jew, therefore not-human."
The question is pretty laughable, really. Could you really not figure it out for yourself?
----
Again, in my view, morality is the process of aiming for the most justifiable position available.
You didn't even get close to answering my questions in this comment. Feel free to provide a non-circular response sometime. All you're doing is self-referential navel-gazing here.
Post a Comment