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
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to