Posted on 12/12/2005 8:01:43 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Anybody can learn to recite a dictionary definition of virtue. We have a lot of dictionary mongers online in this thread.
It strikes me that these folks are incapable of understanding the internalized desire to be a good person, to help one's children and, by extension, build a just society for one's descendants to live in.
I fully appreciate the difficulty of defining specifically what is to be done. That is what politics is about, deciding what needs to be done to improve the world.
I am curious, however, about people who aren't self-motivated to make things better.
All you've done is present a tautology. The words "is due to" does not define a cause. One could just as easily substitute the word "is."
The presence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws is due to the ongoing activity of an almighty, omnipresent, intelligent agent as demonstrated by the ubiquitous presence of observable data communicated to intelligent agents outside of the same, without which the practice of science would be impossible.
The most convincing argument against this theory would be the absence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws. Such evidence has been small in forthcoming, although black holes may be a sign that the absence of organized matter exists.
Stult: Your claim is manifestly false. (Having no more integrity than "Bush lied" and similar leftist mantras.) You have, and always have had, every theological shade among evolutionists. You have agressive atheists (e.g. Richard Dawkins) you have skeptical agnostics (e.g. Darwin himself) and YOU ALSO HAVE theists, often fairly pious ones (e.g. Asa Gray, Kenneth Miller, Francisco Ayala, Ronald Fisher, Simon Conway Morris, just to name a few that come to mind).
Don't forget that noted God-hater, Pope John-Paul II.
I thought you held to the theory of evolution.
I suspect this is related to the question of being born again, but you'd never guess it from the speechifying of the Elect.
Killer example.. just beautiful...
You can, by way of speaking. But the language is historically a posteriori to an experience that is not secular.
The whole structure of a secular virtue is actually no simpler than any other. Instead of a theodicy one must give a "physidicy." It must also answer the origin of virtue and why we would act against nature. Unless I am mistaken, this is only possible in some form of dualism. I don't think along these lines, and I suggest that if you do, give us what you think. I might be converted.
Nor does it mean that only the correct answer exists in mathematics. I understand your analogy is quite popular in modern classrooms. The idea that one could set a goal and a procedure for achieving it is so stifling.
Dualism remains possible until we can explain how a conscious volitional thought migrates down the nervous system and activates a muscle or gland. We might question consciousness, volition, or thought, or all three, but consciousness, especially self-consciousness seems a given.
I really don't find it very interesting to talk about virtue and morality with someone who considers it an inquisition to be asked why he seeks or does not seek virtue.
Less sarcastically, I will take the liberty of answering the question for him - I suspect that Corny is an inherently moral person, who is not simply one crisis of faith away from being a thief or pedophile or serial killer. He (she?) might find it shocking and dismaying if it were discovered that morality and virtue were concepts inherently created and defined by humans, rather than handed down by some otherworldly being, but I suspect he would recover from that relatively neatly and continue living according to these human concepts of morality and virtue. Naturally, I trust that cornelis will correct me if this is not the case, if I have somehow misjudged him ;)
I trust you would be courteous enough to accept that I too recognize people's desire to be good, to help one's chikldren, and buid a just society.
I will add also that the problem of evil is just as real.
Science is composed of scientists.. And some make Vestal Virgins out of them(scientists).. whom were in fact/became whores.. and thats no BS..
But I don't, js1138. Yet if I cannot ask you what virtue is makes we have something less than a dialogue.
Yes. There is incredibly so much evidence to support this that it is generally accepted as fact. As someone has mentioned, our entire classification system looks as it does because of this fact. The theory of evolution exists to explain this fact, just as the various theories of gravity exist to explain the fact of gravity. ID, if it could be formed into a scientific theory, would also exist to explain this fact.
Such is the assertion, anyway - this assertion is, needless to say, rather contentious and not universally accepted in any case.
In any case, it seems that unless I can explain why virtuousness or morality is better than the lack thereof, and additionally where such concepts as "virtue" come from, you may very well see no need to be virtuous or moral. To the first, I offer you the same deal you have now - be moral or suffer the consequences. To the second, the mere fact that it exists is enough to proceed - from whence it came is not critical to its continued use.
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.