|
Kirata -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (2/1/2011 6:35:25 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Perhaps you might like to clarify what this means then. If this isn't an assertion that a morality based on a (unspecified) "divine Moral Law" (whatever that means) or sourced in an (unspecified) Moral Absolute (whatever that means) is innately superior to an atheist's "matter of judgment and opinion", then I am unsure what it means or how it is relevant.
It means what it says. Not what you infer from it, not what you imagine, but simply what it says.
If what is moral is a matter of judgment and opinion, we can only express our view of the matter and our rational for upholding it. For us to suggest that this view "may" be a moral position, when we obvously believe that it is or we wouldn't be promoting it, and when we do not believe that there is any absolute standard against which to measure such a claim in any case, makes no sense unless we are playing to an audience that we know believes in such a thing, and crafting our language accordingly.
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
I raised two other objections to your initial argument which, thus far, you have declined to address. It seems to me that establishing the validity of any one of the three objections I raised is enough to negate your conclusion. As things stand, the status of two of the three objections seems to me to be valid by default.
Your second objection actually supports my observation, by using the example of theological disputation over what "may" or may not accord with divine moral law. If Harris was a theologian, arguing that his views "may" be seen to accord with the moral law, then you would have a point. My point is, he's not.
And your third objection that conditional "may" statements don't equate to "is" statements illustrates my claim that they reflect posturing, because he clearly and baldly "is" of the view that the pre-emptive murder of people who hold dangerous beliefs, even if they haven't done anything yet, is simply a matter of "self defense."
And incidentally, if someone contradicts an assertion that we went to the Moon by "objecting" that the astronauts did not return with cheese on their boots, their objection is not rendered "valid" by people ignoring such batshit.
K.
|
|
|
|
