Tom Caylor wrote: > On Feb 24, 6:10 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 2/24/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>>> The universe is not under any obligation to reveal itself to us. All we >>> can >>>> do is stumble around blindly gathering what data we can and make a best >>>> guess as to what's going on. >>> This is a metaphysical judgment. There are those who strongly >>> disagree on rational grounds. >> One of the problems with the verification principle of logical positivism >> was that it, itself, cannot be verified by the verification principle, and >> hence is subject to the charge of being part of the hated metaphysics (and, >> I suppose, if it could be verified it would be subject to the charge that it >> was a circular argument). But I would get around the problem by stating the >> principles by which science works thus: IF you want to predict the weather, >> build planes that fly, make sick people better THEN you should do such and >> such. By putting it in this conditional form there is no metaphysical >> component. >> > > I think you and/or Bruno talked about this internal conditional > definition of "morality" before. But this is just logical inference > inside a "closed" system of facts. IF this is true THEN this is > true. There are no real normative statements here, and thus no real > moral meaning. IF you want to torture babies, THEN you "should" do > such and such. This definition of morality does not explain why we > should want certain things and not others. This definition does not > suppport the real noble things of morality such as compassion. Some > examples are: > > IF you want to follow the Creator's path when your enemy strikes you > on the cheek, THEN you should turn the other cheek and pray for him/ > her. > IF you want to follow the Creator's path when it comes to a choice > between your benefit and your neighbor's benefit, THEN you act for > your neighbor's benefit. > IF you want to follow the Creator's path when it comes to a choice > between your life and your friend's life, THEN you should give your > life. > > The thing that is different in this realm of true morality is that the > Creator is a person that we can get to know (not totally, but in a > process of growth just like any relationship), so that we aren't just > cranking out IF/THEN inferences like a machine, but the Holy Spirit > (analogous to All Soul in Bruno/Plotinus term) affirms with our spirit > that a certain response or initiative in the current situation is in > accord with the Creator's personal character. Thus, there is only so > much convincing that one can do in a forum like this. The rest > requires actually being shown God's love in a tangible way by another > person. Then it is still up to each of us to decide how we respond. > ... > > I insist that I am not going down the ontological argument path. If > you want to categorize my argument from meaning, perhaps it is closest > to Kant's argument from morality. In a scientific system, perhaps > this is branded as "wishful thinking", but I am also insisting that > science's basis (anything's basis actually), such as fundamentality, > generality, beauty, "introspection" is also mystical wishful thinking, > and naturality is circular, and reproducibility is circular in that > its pragmatism begs the question of meaning (IF you want to do this, > THEN reproducible experiments have shown that you "should" do such and > such). > > Tom
You seem not to appreciate the inconsistency in trying to use someone else's morality, even The Creator's, as your own. Surely you've read Euthyphro. Brent Meeker --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
