Theological Opinions , PART II

[Rían]

What's been really striking about this discussion, IMO, is how you pretty much do everything you can to avoid using terms like right and wrong, yet you can't help doing it, over and over again, indirectly. When you are careful about what you say, you won't use right and wrong, but when you answer without trying to be careful, your warm and caring heart makes you say all sorts of things that show a VERY strong belief in right and wrong (and this is why I like you!) And not only a personal opinion of right and wrong, but an objective/global existence of right and wrong. This, to me, shows a serious disconnect between your worldview and reality, which indicates that your worldview is, IMO, most probably inaccurate, because the more accurate a worldview is, the more it should line up with reality.

One of the first things I noticed about you, IRex, is your kind and caring and passionate posts on the venting thread, especially to young ladies (you are very chivalrous and protective of women and the disadvantaged!) That's what first made me like you, despite your sometimes T-Rexy outbursts of temper!

But despite your passionate defences of those that you think have been wronged, you won't call things right or wrong when you're trying to be careful about what you say! This shows me that disconnect that I mentioned.

See, if you would just say, "I think it's wrong to be unjust, but I realize there is no objective right and wrong so you go ahead and do what you think is right", then I wouldn't have a logical problem with what you say. But you don't do this - you actually tell others that they're wrong! But how can you logically do this if not only is there no universal right/wrong? (of course you CAN and DO do this, but it's not LOGICAL for you to do this within the framework of your worldview, which is a serious case against the validity of your worldview.)

One way you've tried to get around this is to say that morals have somehow evolved - that people that acted in certain ways tended to survive to pass on their genes. This is a possible solution, in some ways, if you are willing to ignore a lot of other data. What you're ignoring (or trying to ignore, but it's obvious from your posts that you really don't) is the human heart or soul, or whatever name you want to give it.

You say we act certain ways because our genes are more likely to get passed on that way. If you really want to accept that small view of the world, then I guess you're free to do so, but that means that things like beauty, courage, honor, truth, humor, and even love are meaningless. MEANINGLESS. If you're willing to accept that, then I guess there's nothing I can do to stop you, but I will object to you telling me things like I shouldn't be against gay marriage. How can I be "wrong" if (acc'd to your viewpoint) it's my genes driving my behavior? Words like "should" imply something is right or wrong, but you won't use those terms, so why do you keep telling me what I "should" and "shouldn't" do? Within the framework of your worldview, those words are meaningless. Why is it wrong to be unjust if there are no objective rights and wrongs? Perhaps we'll "evolve" in a few years to where injustice is fine, right? (at least enough so our species will survive - perhaps just torturing a few babies every once in awhile for fun or something.) HOW can you tell me something is wrong - UNLESS you're appealing to a universal right that you think we should BOTH come in line with? Yet you do this over and over.

Doesn't that make you wonder if your worldview is wrong?

One way to divide up the possibility of what is really true in the universe is this question - do god/gods exist, or not? If so, then morality makes sense, because there is an outside authoritative being independent of humans. If not, then morality makes no sense whatsoever, because one person's opinion is as good as another's, and therefore one can't be right and another wrong. Yet EVERY DAY, EVERY ONE OF US appeals to a universal standard! the most basic being that it is WRONG to harm someone else for selfish gain. Our conversations are absolutely FILLED with references to things that are right and wrong! And I can't see how this would make sense to us, and how it would be so universal, if god/gods do not exist. Do you? The only way that I see that you can is to deny a large part of life - the part that says beauty and courage and honor and humor and love are actually GOOD things. As I said before, if God doesn't exist, then Frodo was a fool to do what he did. Yet all of us here admire him ... that should tell us something ... think about it ...

[Rían]

I think the only way you can defend a non-theistic worldview is to deny, in some way, your head (logic), your heart (which is a huge part of existence), and/or reality.

Both theistic and non-theistic worldviews are non-proveable - but to me, the one that jives the most with head and heart and reality is a theistic one. And among the theistic ones, Christianity is the most logical and the most matching to reality, IMO, so that's why I believe it's true.

[Rían]

(test)

[EarthBound]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

(test)

I have no response to this.....though, usually I do quite well on exams......



*spam trap*

[EarthBound]

[QUOTE=RÃ*an]And a restatement of the 3 tests that I think are valuable in evaluating a person's worldview:
Test 1. does it jive with the evidence I know about;
Test 2. is it internally logically consistent; and
Test 3. does it hold up when "the rubber meets the road".

QUOTE]

Test 1 is likely based upon personal experience/knowledge....which, though no fault of our own, equates into a very limiting discretion-tool.

Test 2 is certainly the most "comfortable" measuring stick for me

Test 3 Complicated....I'll read your post concerning it before commenting.

Note: I'll never feel bad about long post again between you, inked, and Rex...hahaha

[EarthBound]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

As I said before, if God doesn't exist, then Frodo was a fool to do what he did. Yet all of us here admire him ... that should tell us something ... think about it ...

Oi! I'm thinking about putting that in my signature, that's going to be a favorite quote of mine now.....

I agree, there's more to it all than chemicals/biology/and space dust if we rather universally acknowledge Frodo was "Spot On" to risk his life destroying the ring....that which could have given him large selfish gratification...

Excellent post as usual RÃ*an

Edit: needed to come back and correct spelling…..got busy at work

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Well, after asking over and OVER again if things like partial birth abortion and injustice are wrong (not wrong according to our constitution, but wrong in IRex's eyes), and after IRex refusing over and over to answer such a simple question, I finally get the answer quoted above, from which I'll conclude that IRex thinks it is wrong to be unjust.

then you would be… wrong… because as I said ACCORDING TO THE DEFINITION wrong is also unjust. That’s all I said. Because that’s all you can say. So when I say something is UNJUST you need to take it at face value and not ignore me continually and ask me if its wrong wrong wrong…

So if you are hell bent an not using the word unjust and instead using the word wrong then that’s my response to you. Now lets have a little truth and advertising and show that WHOLE quote shall we…

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Hows this: some things are wrong in the vein that they are unjust. And dont say I cant say that because its IN the actual DEFINITION of the word thanks.

and heres the definition.

wrong P Pronunciation Key (rông, r ng)
adj.
1. Not in conformity with fact or truth; incorrect or erroneous.
2.
a. Contrary to conscience, morality, or law; immoral or wicked.
b. Unfair; unjust.
3. Not required, intended, or wanted: took a wrong turn.
4. Not fitting or suitable; inappropriate or improper: said the wrong thing.
5. Not in accord with established usage, method, or procedure: the wrong way to shuck clams.
6. Not functioning properly; out of order.
7. Unacceptable or undesirable according to social convention.
8. Designating the side, as of a garment, that is less finished and not intended to show: socks worn wrong side out.

But this has nothing to do with your version of “wrong�. So either listen to what I said there and accept the words that I said or drop your attempt to wrestle me into a moral discussion not relevant to the facts of the topic we are discussing and a clear attempt to avoid that fact that you cant show how your point of view regarding same sex marriage is at all justified.

The next natural question would be, WHY, in his opinion, is it wrong?

sorry. You seem to think you have tricked me into tripping into your irrelevant moralistic trap. See above. I have not. You have simply misappropriated words. Try again…

[Rían]

Originally Posted by EarthBound

I have no response to this.....though, usually I do quite well on exams......



*spam trap*

*heehee!*

I was having that trouble with posts appearing, so I made a test post to see if the previous two would show up.

You pass the test!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by EarthBound

Test 1 is likely based upon personal experience/knowledge....which, though no fault of our own, equates into a very limiting discretion-tool.

Yes, but it's all we can go on, don't you agree? I mean, I can only go on what I know. Of course, I'm including research and thoughts by other people that we hear about, if we think they are valid. My point was that we don't, and never will, know everything, so we just have to go on what we think we know to be true.

Test 2 is certainly the most "comfortable" measuring stick for me

and a very important one, too, IMO.

Test 3 Complicated....I'll read your post concerning it before commenting.

Basically I mean does it match reality, but I"ll explain more.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by EarthBound

I agree, there's more to it all than chemicals/biology/and space dust if we rather universally acknowledge Frodo was "Spot On" to risk his life destroying the ring....that which could have given him large selfish gratification...

I think it's rather universal, too, which should make us think about WHY this might be so. It's pretty compelling data.

Excellent post as usual RÃ*an

Thanks *blush*
I'm glad you think so, and glad you are taking me at face value. I'm NOT into tricks and deception at ALL, despite what IRex says I'm NOT! and his accusations grieve me. I think too highly of people to deceive them, and I think too highly of truth to deceive someone, even if it gives me a "win". I'd rather lose on what I consider to be the truth than win with a deception.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

then you would be… wrong… because as I said ACCORDING TO THE DEFINITION wrong is also unjust....

Sorry, I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here - I'm "wrong" in what way? That you, personally, think it's wrong to be unjust?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

But this has nothing to do with your version of “wrong�. So either listen to what I said there and accept the words that I said or drop your attempt to wrestle me into a moral discussion not relevant to the facts of the topic we are discussing and a clear attempt to avoid that fact that you cant show how your point of view regarding same sex marriage is at all justified.

Well, if you don't think it's wrong for me to be against same sex marriage, then please don't bother me anymore about it

Here's another angle - imagine you with your little Rexlings gathered around, and Rita Rexling grabs a toy away from Roger Rexling and bops him on the head with it. What would you tell Rita?

[Rían]

Here's another question - if you go to pregnancystore.com, you'll see their new product that will tell a mother the sex of her baby at 5 weeks. Do you guys think it's fine for a mom to use this test to abort, say, a girl fetus (or two or three or more) if she wants a boy?

[EarthBound]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Here's another question - if you go to pregnancystore.com, you'll see their new product that will tell a mother the sex of her baby at 5 weeks. Do you guys think it's fine for a mom to use this test to abort, say, a girl fetus (or two or three or more) if she wants a boy?

[sweet voice] I think to consider the "life" of a fetus so insignificant (to chuck out the undesired sex/fetus like unwanted brazil nuts from a can of mixed nuts) you would need to consider your own life small and pointless to toss away something so obviously precious; it would be "sickness" of the worst kind. A life completely without appreciation for the "magic" that begat anything at all!

What's interesting is that Religion is used as ballast for an opine on abortion from BOTH sides of the issue while it need not be the distinguishing characteristic....what about decent appreciation for Life itself? Does a rejection (reflection) of God require one to reject the sanctity of Life? Why the constant battle over this issue in a religious format, not that it can't be based 'belief' wise there, but seems rather a "humane" and "Life Appreciation" issue?

[not meant to be a baiting/flaming post but rather a sincere post]

*

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by EarthBound

What's interesting is that Religion is used as ballast for an opine on abortion from BOTH sides of the issue while it need not be the distinguishing characteristic....what about decent appreciation for Life itself??? Does a rejection (reflection) of God require one to reject the sanctity of Life??? Why the constant battle over this issue in a religious format, not that it can't be based 'belief' wise there, but seems rather a "humane" and "Life Appreciation" issue.

Let me turn that around: just because I don't think abortion should be illegal doesn't mean I think life is cheap. I am an atheist, I have a decent "life appreciation". Hell, I'm against the death penalty...

To answer Rian's question, depends on what you mean by OK. Legally, possibly. Morally, no. In (UK) law, IIRC, to get an abortion you have to persuade a medic that you need one. That would be a hard conversation to have if the basis were gender. In fact, it may specifically be outlawed as I think some amendments were made via the Human Embryology and Fertilisation Act which affected this. Not sure though.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

When you are careful about what you say, you won't use right and wrong, but when you answer without trying to be careful, your warm and caring heart makes you say all sorts of things that show a VERY strong belief in right and wrong

I think what Ive been saying has in fact shown that the terms “right� and “wrong� are in fact meaningless to the discussion at hand. That’s been my point all along. Its ok to use the terms because they convey a general meaning but what you are doing is attempting to plant them in my mouth (fingers?) so that you can push me directly into some preloaded moral argument you have. So of course Im not gonna do that which is why I continually say right and wrong in this context is meaningless. Justice on the other hand…

This, to me, shows a serious disconnect between your worldview and reality, which indicates that your worldview is, IMO, most probably inaccurate, because the more accurate a worldview is, the more it should line up with reality.

reality? Youre a creationist rian and you tell me I have no concept of reality? You are in deep left field on so many issues because you base all your opinions on your religion and IM out of touch with reality? You discriminate against people because the bible says to and IM out of touch with reality?! That’s amazing.

But despite your passionate defences of those that you think have been wronged, you won't call things right or wrong when you're trying to be careful about what you say! This shows me that disconnect that I mentioned.

no it simply shows that I don’t want to get into your silly linguistic games that you keep trying to pull me into. And that I feel the terms are irrelevant to this particular discussion.

See, if you would just say, "I think it's wrong to be unjust

I have already said being “wrong� IS being unjust. The terminology pestering should end there and we should move on to the heart of the matter. The definition of wrong IS being unjust. See above. So when I say something is unjust you need to accept that and not ask me if its wrong too because that’s just being redundant and unjust is what matters in this context.

you actually tell others that they're wrong! But how can you logically do this if not only is there no universal right/wrong?

because its unjust to discriminate against gays in this way. Easy.

One way you've tried to get around this is to say that morals have somehow evolved - that people that acted in certain ways tended to survive to pass on their genes. This is a possible solution, in some ways, if you are willing to ignore a lot of other data. What you're ignoring (or trying to ignore, but it's obvious from your posts that you really don't) is the human heart or soul, or whatever name you want to give it.

what has this got to do with the subject matter? Of course morals are part of our evolution. Everything we are is part of our evolution. Morals also reflect the environment we live in. I think weve been through this before. Your contention that they are injected in by god and are not in fact integral to our make up is based on zero data (as usual). Whereas there is plenty to show how having morals is a useful thing in terms of survival. Not too complicated actually. Would be happy to get back into this with you to once again straighten out your confusions on the subject in the morals or right or wrong threads.

And I find it a little disingenuous for you to introduce a term like “soul� to justify that I somehow don’t understand morals. Talk about a meaningless term… You application of soul (and heart in this context) implies a strictly Christian ideology. You cant tell me Im wrong about something because in order to begin to understand id have to blindly embrace a Christian notion. Talk about limiting and self fulfilling. I find that forcing specific definitions on people make it’s a lot less likely they will be able to properly discern the full picture. Or at least see the full array of variables available because so many will be outside of their little box.

You say we act certain ways because our genes are more likely to get passed on that way. If you really want to accept that small view of the world, then I guess you're free to do so

small view? Ha ha!! It’s a simple fact that many actions in nature can be traced to genes. do you deny this? Want me to give you several million examples?

but that means that things like beauty, courage, honor, truth, humor, and even love are meaningless. MEANINGLESS.

oh my very dramatic. But… (whats the word you love so much again?) WRONG. How can you go from the notion that genetics plays a role in behavior and then immediately say that the things you listed above would have to be meaningless. Of course they have meaning. You don’t think beauty has a pretty significant hard wired rational behind it? Again I can give you countless examples of that. One big one is that it helps us BREED. Cant get much more important then that I don’t think. It’s a big factor in mate selection so of course we will be hard wired to recognize aspects of beauty. Courage certainly is a biologically useful trait. I gave you a nice long explanation on that once when we were talking about the development of certain behaviors. Want me to fish that out? Honor is also an aspect of genetics and environment. This is proved because it has vastly different expressions when you look at different cultures. Truth? That’s not a behavior. Humor? Easily explained if you know anything about social interaction and organisms that live in complex communities where getting along is highly useful. Even lower order animals display humor in their behavior. So cant be some god injected alien thing like yer implying. And love is incredibly useful biologically. Do I even have to explain how good that one is for the genes rian? So nope none of these things are meaningless according to me. They fit in quite well with everything ive been saying.

but I will object to you telling me things like I shouldn't be against gay marriage.

I cant dictate if you want to discriminate or not but I can point out the hypocrisy of it to you. And I can certainly point out that in OUR society it is UNJUST to do so. And that just because the majority of people are fine with being discriminatory and unjust this still does not make it undiscriminatory and just.

[Insidious Rex]

How can I be "wrong" if (acc'd to your viewpoint) it's my genes driving my behavior?

Ah and here in a nut shell is where you’ve been trying to push me so hard for so long with so many careful baitings. That I MUST hold that nothing is wrong since genes play a role in behavior. Well allow me to say this is utter and complete nonsense and you know it is. that’s the sad thing. And this is why I didn’t want to get into a debate over the word “wrong� because I knew youd attempt this kind of simplistic check mate move to allow you to attempt to discount anything I said because my moral point of view isn’t Christian. Garbage rian. You can be DISCRIMINATORY and UNJUST and your genes are not relevant to that fact. some of our genes would cause us to kill infants. Remember that point from long ago? Does that means its OK to kill infants? Does that mean its an all or nothing thing like you like to insist morals are? No. It means that SOMETIMES killing infants is useful to the betterment of the gene. But pretty damn rarely considering the stigma involved with doing so (not speaking of abortion here). Because if you do it too much you may get yourself killed. So just because our genes allow us to be unjust doesn’t mean we SHOULD be unjust. Other genes keep that in check. In some cultures and some environments some aspects of our genetics are emphasized over others simply because of what one learns in that culture or environment. Theres a full and complex give and take and flux and feedback in how our genes interact with environmental factors to dictate our ultimate behavior. Its not a black and white thing. It’s a lot more complex then that. All we can say is that behaviors that happen are within the realm of possibility for our genes. does that make them “right� or “wrong�? well frankly I think it’s a stupid question.

Perhaps we'll "evolve" in a few years to where injustice is fine, right? (at least enough so our species will survive - perhaps just torturing a few babies every once in awhile for fun or something.)

note the killing babies example above. We don’t need to “evolve in a few years�. We are already there. Infanticide is a known phenomenon within our species. Oh but that’s just god allowing us to be bad right? Because theres a point to that and all…

HOW can you tell me something is wrong - UNLESS you're appealing to a universal right that you think we should BOTH come in line with?

How can you openly discriminate against gays when you have no evidence to do so? Which makes less sense: you discriminating because your religion holds that position when what they do DOESN’T effect you whatsoever… or me saying hey don’t discriminate against them because if you discriminate against them arbitrarily and in a completely unjust way then you set the precedent that anyone can discriminate against anyone for whatever reason they want. Well that’s risky cause next it could be you or me and then WE’D be in trouble. So think of it as selfish if you like. Maybe thatll make it easier for you to grasp the consistency of the position. If others who don’t effect me aren’t at risk then I wont be at risk from unjustified discrimination.

Doesn't that make you wonder if your worldview is wrong?

nope but it shows me how unjust yours is.

One way to divide up the possibility of what is really true in the universe is this question - do god/gods exist, or not? If so, then morality makes sense, because there is an outside authoritative being independent of humans. If not, then morality makes no sense whatsoever

That’s just so much crap. “Morality� can certainly exist independent of divinity or not. It can CERTAINLY be a strictly natural component of life. We even see what we would call “moral� behavior among chimpanzees and other animals. How in the world can you say that morality cant exist if god doesn’t exist. PLEASE stop trying to co-opt terms to your narrow Christian point of view. The terms exist outside of any religious perspective.

Yet EVERY DAY, EVERY ONE OF US appeals to a universal standard! the most basic being that it is WRONG to harm someone else for selfish gain.

I would certainly disagree with this. There are plenty of examples of cultures where open hostility for selfish gain is accepted. In fact expected. And not doing so is considered weak. I think ive already listed many in the past. Im fact I dare say the majority of our existence has been defined by this quality. Once again, our genes allow us the ability to be incredibly selfless and social and at the same time incredibly ruthless and murderous. Why? Because BOTH ways of living have their uses. If it was just about god then that wouldn’t be the case. We wouldn’t have any variation in behavior because we would all be constantly appealing to a “universal standard�.

And I can't see how this would make sense to us, and how it would be so universal, if god/gods do not exist. Do you?

yes I can. See above. Nature.

The only way that I see that you can is to deny a large part of life - the part that says beauty and courage and honor and humor and love are actually GOOD things.

again the term “good� is meaningless to me in that context. Life doesn’t “say� anything about the things you listed. Life is. the things you listed are. When they are useful they apply. Its not too complicated. You seem to have forgotten that “beauty� is most certainly in the eye of the beholder…

As I said before, if God doesn't exist, then Frodo was a fool to do what he did. Yet all of us here admire him ... that should tell us something ... think about it ...

tells us that we shouldn’t analyze works of fiction to see how nature works. Ha! Sound familiar? What would Frodo do….

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Sorry, I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here - I'm "wrong" in what way? That you, personally, think it's wrong to be unjust?

Wrong = unjust. According to the definition. So if you want to say you are wrong in that you are being unjust then you wont find any argument here.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Well, if you don't think it's wrong for me to be against same sex marriage, then please don't bother me anymore about it

which is why I say its unjust.

Here's another angle - imagine you with your little Rexlings gathered around, and Rita Rexling grabs a toy away from Roger Rexling and bops him on the head with it. What would you tell Rita?

To give the toy back and go to her room. Because that kind of behavior, although useful in SOME situations and therefore allowable by our genes, isnt beneficial at ALL times. It is therefore my responsibility as one of the prime gamete providers to educate my offspring to this fact thereby better ensuring her survivability to breeding age.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by EarthBound

[sweet voice] I think to consider the "life" of a fetus so insignificant (to chuck out the undesired sex/fetus like unwanted brazil nuts from a can of mixed nuts) you would need to consider your own life small and pointless to toss away something so obviously precious; it would be "sickness" of the worst kind. A life completely without appreciation for the "magic" that begat anything at all!

brazil nuts - heehee! too true!

Do you think abortion for other reasons is OK?

What's interesting is that Religion is used as ballast for an opine on abortion from BOTH sides of the issue while it need not be the distinguishing characteristic....what about decent appreciation for Life itself? Does a rejection (reflection) of God require one to reject the sanctity of Life? Why the constant battle over this issue in a religious format, not that it can't be based 'belief' wise there, but seems rather a "humane" and "Life Appreciation" issue?

[not meant to be a baiting/flaming post but rather a sincere post]

I don't think you're not baiting/flaming at ALL! Your questions come across as sincere and thoughtful. I think you raise some excellent points. How would you answer your questions? What do you think?