Posted on 01/04/2004 4:15:52 PM PST by Eala
Probably half the offensive terms you can think of are similarly well-grounded. I don't see how that makes them less offensive.
I don't buy that. The most obvious example of a belief that makes many people angry is evolution -- which describes events that took place in the past, and are thus beyond the reach of any beneficial or damaging policy decisions.
I appreciate your reasoning, but I disagree with your view of evolution's significance. Evolution may not control policy directly, but it does control how we see ourselves. How we see ourselves often controls policy and more importantly influences individual actions that are as important as policy in setting the direction of a free society. If we are created beings, we have some obligation to our Creator. I'm not trying to define that obligation for you or anyone else, but if I have been created by God, I at least owe God an acknowledgement that He created me. The knowledge that I'm created by God is going to direct how I think about life, the truth, and how I relate to those around me. If we're just the product of millions of years of more or less random mutations, adaptations, and so on, then we owe nothing to anyone besides ourselves. If I'm just the result of a chain of biological/physical/chemical events, then I'm going to have a different view of truth.
Admittedly, my using the word "policy" gave my comments a more narrow implication than what I'm saying here. I probably should have expanded that thought in my first post.
Would you really? Would arithmetic be different for you? Would gravity? Wouldn't you still need food, water, sleep? Wouldn't you still go to work and look after your family? What is there of any significance that you would do differently? Would you run around raping and killing? (Very few biology teachers do.) I strongly suspect that if you decided evolution makes sense, your life would be unchanged.
You're right. Michael Jackson can go on TV and say that he likes to have boys sleep in his bed, and yet he's not thrown in jail, or committed to an insane asylum. And people defend his actions!
The "prophet" Mohammed had sex with (and married) underage girls. Yet a whole religion was founded on him!
Men are marrying men, and women are marrying women - and this is all considered perfectly normal!
People have sex-change operations - they find doctors who will actually perform them. And this too is normal!
And, after said operations, a man is referred to as a "woman", and a woman is referred to as a "man", when really they are no such thing. The DNA proves otherwise. Just because you cut off a piece of your anatomy, or have it refashioned, doesn't mean you have become the opposite sex.
Etcetera, etcetera.
From article: My hypothesis is that the side that's shocked is most likely to be the mistaken one.
Yeah, right! My hypothesis is the exact opposite.
I don't think so. What about the African idea (is it a myth?) that to have sex with a virgin will cure AIDS?
What about female mutilation?
No, the side that's shocked is the correct one.
Yes, I would really have a different view of truth. I agree that it wouldn't change arithmetic, gravity, (other genuine scientific facts), my basic physical needs, or my need to make a living. However, it would change my view of morality. If there were no higher power, I wouldn't feel any need to answer to that power. I wouldn't necessarily murder, rape, or rob, but my approach to moral questions would be different. I'm not afraid to take a hard line on many things, but my opinions are shaped by the knowledge that there is a God who will be the ultimate judge. I would be willing to take a less utilitarian position on some issues if I didn't believe in an ultimate truth.
For what it's worth, I think evolution makes some sense even though I don't completely believe it. I certainly believe in natural selection and adaptation. I certainly don't care for pro-evolution fanatics who don't like anything that questions evolution. However, I am also skeptical of many "creation scientists" and their pat answers to some questions.
I find it amusing that those who believe in evolution used to argue violently against the idea that an outside force led to the development of life on earth. However, when astronomers started suggesting that the outside force was proteins that came from meteorites, these evolutionists were suddenly able to embrace an outside force starting the whole process. The outside force of a meteorite carrying a few organic molecules didn't endanger their view of themselves as not being obligated to a creator, so they could embrace that outside force as possible or even necessary. However, an outside force that suggested a God whom we should rightly acknowledge was a heresy that they couldn't abide.
I assume from your question that you believe in evolution. Do you believe in God? If not, do you believe in any absolute truths? If you believe in absolute truth, how do you define it or discover it?
Yes, but not in any traditional, sectarian sense. My ideas don't conform to those of any organized religion. I never discuss it here because it's not relevant to conversations about science.
If not, do you believe in any absolute truths? If you believe in absolute truth, how do you define it or discover it?
Truth is a statement that accurately describes reality. So your question, to me, is: how do we learn about reality? I don't believe knowledge comes to us by the process theologians call revelation, which is claimed to be a supernatural communication from a spiritual domain beyond the universe. It doesn't work for me, and I'm not impressed that it's ever worked for anyone; especially because we have no way to verify the information.
Instead, we learn reality by observing, by thinking, that sort of thing. The process usually goes by the term of reason. It includes such techniques as logic and the scientific method. That's how we learn truth. And discover error. Anticipating your next question, it's also how we learn morality.
You have some interesting thoughts. To me, truth and reality are different, so I don't understand your position very well. If you have time, I'll ask the question another way.
How do you know that murder is wrong? That may seem to be a silly question, but I think people see it as silly because they think that it's self-evident that murder is wrong. I think people see murder as being wrong because it violates the most basic rights of the person who is being murdered, but how would one answer the question "so what if that person's rights are violated?" To me, absolute truth is what tells me that violating an individual's basic right to life is wrong. Even if "reality" told me that there was some benefit to a large number of people from murdering some individual, I would still see that murder as wrong. I'm not trying to argue that there aren't gray areas in the whole situation. That's a different question. I'm just looking for an understanding of how you arrive at a sense of morality with what seems like a strong lean towards an observation and measurement approach and a much weaker contribution from the idea of overarching, "supernatural" truth.
If truth and reality are different, how in the world do you know what's true?
How do you know that murder is wrong?
I think we all know it by observation, and by thinking about what society would be like if we didn't regard it as wrong. If you had a choice of locations in which to settle, and one outlawed murder while the other didn't, your choice would be simple. Multiply that choice by the number of people on earth, and you can see why (virtually) everyone agrees that murder is wrong. Those societies that think otherwise are wretched failures.
If it's your claim that we only know it's wrong because some supernatural deity has so informed us, I have two responses. First, what would be your reaction if this source were to appear and tell you that the rules had changed, and that murder is now moral? Would you unhesitatingly accept that, merely because it came from a supernatural source? Or would you resist it?
I think we all know enough to resist such a ghastly commandment. We know it because we can apply our own powers of reason to the situation and reach our own conclusions. If it's any help, there's scriptural authority for this position:
Genesis 18:23There's a mere man, using his own sense of morality, challenging God. Good example, because we all know murder is wrong.
And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?
18:24 Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein?
18:25 That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?
When I say that truth and reality are different, I mean that I use these terms differently in these kinds of discussions. I see reality as a more transient condition. The reality is that I'm sixty-five pounds overweight. I hope that condition will change, but it is the current reality. While the fact that I'm overweight is true, I usually use the word "truth" for things that shouldn't change. For instance, I think it's a "truth" that the traditional family is the basis of a healthy society. (Another reality is that while I believe that the traditional family is the basis of a healthy society, I've been unsuccessful in my own efforts to form a family.)
If it's your claim that we only know it's wrong because some supernatural deity has so informed us, I have two responses. First, what would be your reaction if this source were to appear and tell you that the rules had changed, and that murder is now moral? Would you unhesitatingly accept that, merely because it came from a supernatural source? Or would you resist it?
While I consider myself a failed Christian and no longer actively pursue a relationship with God, I still hold a more or less Christian view of the supernatural. I believe that the supernatural or spiritual world is composed of good and evil. The mere appearance of a supernatural being telling me something like this would not change my view because I might not know whether that being was good or evil, of God or of Satan. If I were certain that the being was of God, then I would change my view.
While I'm certain God wouldn't tell me that murder is okay, I'll offer a different and nearly equally controversial example. I oppose abortion because I believe that by the time a woman knows that she is pregnant, the unborn child is already a person who deserves legal protection. My basis for this view is more about brain development in the child than about spiritual revelation, but I'll consider some theological arguments in some situations. Imagine God appeared to me and said, "Bill, you've messed up. The truth is that I don't give a child its soul until it leaves the birth canal. It's not a person before that time. My Justice does not require that those who shed the blood of an unborn child be punished. You can drop your opposition to abortion." If that happened, I'd stop opposing abortion. I don't know how active I'd become in advocating the pro-abortion position, but I'd no longer be anti-abortion.
I have out-of-town guests arriving in a few minutes. I can check back later in the weekend, but I may just leave you the last word on this topic. We don't see eye to eye, but I'm not sure how far apart we really are. In any case, thanks for the discussion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.