On Mar 6, 5:19 pm, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tom Caylor wrote:
> >> A source that has given us the crusades and 9/11 as well as the sister's 
> >> of mercy.  No a very sufficient source if nobody can agree on what it 
> >> provides.
> > I don't like simply saying "That isn't so," but "nobody can agree on
> > what it provides", referring to the source of ultimate meaning,
> I was referring to the "sufficient source of *morality*".  Such a source 
> should be able to provide an unambiguous standard that is so clear everyone 
> agrees - if it existed.
> >is not
> > true.  In fact it's very remarkable the consistency, across all kinds
> > of cultures, the basic beliefs of truly normative morality, evidence
> > for their being a source which cannot be explained through closed
> > science alone.
> Why not?  Why isn't Darwin's or Scott Atran's or Richard Dawkin's a 
> *possible* explanation. And how is "God did it" an explanation of anything?  
> It's just a form of words so ambiguous as to be virtually empty.  "God" meant 
> different things to the crusaders and the 9/11 jihadists, to the Aztecs and 
> the Conquistadores, to the Nazi's and the Jews.  So just because they use the 
> same word doesn't mean they are referring to the same thing.

We've talked about this before.  Darwin cannot explain giving without
expecting to receive.  Actually that's true love.  Only some people
believe that God did that.  But many other people somehow see the
goodness of it.

> And there is nothing "closed" about science.  Science is perfectly open to 
> the existence of whatever you can demonstrate.  People have tried to show 
> that the God who answers prayers exists and they fail.  But they could have 
> succeeded; nothing about science prevented their success.  They failed 
> because there is no such God.
> > On your first sentence, it also can be said of science that a lot of
> > evil has come that wouldn't have come (at least in the forms it has)
> > if it weren't for advances of science.  And I'm not knocking down
> > science as being invalid in its own right.  I'm just making the point
> > that your statement does not address *root* cause any more than
> > blaming science.
> That's the same criticism that theists make of cosmogonies - and the reply is 
> the same; if God doesn't need a root cause and can just exist uncaused, then 
> why not the universe (or the multiverse).  Love and morality don't need a 
> "root cause" beyond the evolutionary advantages they bestow.
> >> Brent Meeker
> >> "Happiness is none the less true happiness because it must come to an end, 
> >> nor do thought and love lose their value because they are not everlasting."
> >>         --- Bertrand Russell-
> > I agree with the Russell quote as it stands.  Unendingness is not what
> > gives meaning.  The source of meaning is not "living forever" in time
> > (contrary to the trans-humanists) but is timeless.  However, the quote
> > makes a bad assumption when it talks about losing value.  The real
> > problem is how there can be any true objective value to love in the
> > first place (other than the so-called "irrefutable" first person:
> > "It's all about me").
> Why should there be?  Values are relative to people.  Love is our word.  We 
> invented it to describe what we feel.  Having some Platonic form of LOVE out 
> there is superfluous.  You're just making up a requirement for "the really 
> real ding-an-sich" so that you can say God provides it.

Dealing with our differences would require dealing with the fact that
I am a moral realist (hence my appeal to the argument from morality),
and you are not.  It seems you are a non-cognitivist or emotivist.

Perhaps we should just acknowledge our different views of morality.
Of course, as a moral realist, I believe that non-cognitivism does not
give a sufficient basis for morality.  But of course you disagree.  If
you agreed with moral realism then you would have to deal with the
argument from morality.

But if, when we say "I love you" to someone, all we're talking about
is our feelings, then morally that is like a stock market bubble, all
froth and in danger of collapse, sooner or later.  I'm not saying that
the speaker doesn't feel something at the time he/she says it, or that
they don't have good intentions.  I'm saying "sooner or later".  There
is no foundation.

> Brent Meeker
> "The Christian religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in 
> veneration- courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love 
> of the truth."
>         --- H. L. Mencken

What in the world is this quote talking about?  Since I am a follower
of Jesus, I am not interested in religion, but I am interested in all
of those other things.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to