Rationalism: a paper tiger?

You do know that it is ID that appeals to post-modernism for support ? It was the ID side that called Steve Fuller in to the Dover case.I don't think that many people on the evolution side of the debate will have any problem with condemning post-modernism.

I think you're right about postmodernists. But there were no postmodernists when Chesterton was writing. AFAIK the only postmodernist to play any significant role in the Ev/C "controversy" is Steve Fuller who is linked to the ID movement (and testified for them at Dover). Postmodernists aren't "rationalists", nor do they seem to play much of a role in shaping the attitudes of society. (If they did then maybe Steve Fuller's testimony would have been more helpful !)So what exactly is the relevance of postmodernism ?

quote:

---

I was just giving an example of Chesterton was referring to. I'm sure you can appreciate it for what it says, not in whom it implicates or doesn't implicate.

---

Chesterton seemed to be referring to a single individual. Your example seems to refer to the combined views of many individuals. If Chesterton merely meant to bewail that there were differing views within society I have to wonder what he felt was a reasonable alternative. Forced conformity hardly seems preferable.

quote:

---

Do you think it wrong to in one moment scorn a woman's virginity, most likely for one's own gain, only to turn around and shame for reversing her decision, the very decision you prompted?

---

This also assumes a single individual. But your example was only plausible because it DID NOT assume a single individual.Chesterton - unlike your example - was asserting that individuals really did engage in these contradictions. Perhaps it has an element of truth - humans being what they are. But it is hardly the product of any particular philosophy or viewpoint. Indeed you will find that in this debate it is the creationists who do not care about consistency. The scientific mind values consistency - the apologists mind is not interested in building a truly coherent picture of the world.

quote:

---

Where I have tied it all in, (and I apologize for the confusion. I take full responsibility in that), is those who maintain a relative stance on these issues, be they Rationalists or Postmodernists, is that there is a fluidity they seem to aspire towards. I

---

What you mean is that you want to drag up the same old accusations again. And again you don't want to go to the effort of actually supporting them. What does your absolute morality say about that ?

Perhaps you'd like to say who you ARE talking about. Is it "rationalists" whoever they might be, post-modernists or everyone who doesn't assume an absolute morality ?

I'm not speaking in generalities. I'm trying to find out what you men. I still don't know who you refer to as rationalists, why you bother to mention post-modernists or why you think that "relativists" engage in the sort of contradictions you refer to.The message I'm getting here is the silly threat "believe in absolute morality or Nemesis Juggernaut will lie about you !".Well lets start with the facts. As you've admitted if there is an absolute morality we don't know it . We have no demonstrably reliable way of even approximating it. So, for all practical purposes there IS no absolute morality. Surely honesty demands that we take a "relativist" position given these facts.

quote:

---

Alright, then let me clarify what I mean. When I included postmodernism, I did so because the societal tone is concurrent with these beliefs. The postmodernist era is using terms like, "tolerance," "relativism," "pluralism," etc. I used Rationalists because many that ascribe to such belief systems often do so against their own pragmatism.

---

OK, so you were using labels you didn't understand. What you are really against is a general attitude in society. You want everyone to agree exactly on what is and isn't moral.

quote:

---

The titles are secondary, in my opinion, next to the material. I don't think the actual premise of my thread has even been discussed at this point.

​

So, if the strawman has been sufficiently slain to everyone's satisfaction, I would like to know if anyone else thinks these inconsistencies present a problem, or if they think it is inconsequential.

---

I don't think that there are any strawmen present. If you represent your own argument poorly and misleadingly then failures to understand it are your fault. You can't accuse others of constructing strawmen when they honestly misudnerstood what you wrote - not least becasue you didn't even understand what you wrote.Whether there is a real problem obviously depends on the reality of the situation. So far we have only Chesterton's outdated attack on everyone who disagreed with his beliefs (and no reason to believe that it is anything more than propaganda) and a vague assertion on your part. Without even a real, concrete example. If that's all that there is to it then it's hard to say that there is a real problem.

quote:

---

Not that we can't know it, but that we can't prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt to one another. The easy thing to do is simply to defer to a relativist mindset.

---

There's sufficient disagreement that we can say that even that is an obvious overstatement. The fact is,that you cannot even provide a good reason for thinking that there is anything morally wrong with homosexuality - but millions still believe that it IS morally wrong. The implication that you have strong arguments for every moral rule you might consider is a blatant falsehood.

quote:

---

If there is no absolute morality, then there is no morality whatever. And if there is no morality, then there is no justification for abhorring female circumcision.

---

There are two errors here. Since subjective morals are all we have your first statement effectively denies that any morality exists in practical terms. It's surprising how many people who claim to be moral absolutists are in fact nihilists. But subjective moral values certainly DO exist and they ARE what we use - and practically every statement about morality is about them. Denying that they exist is just silly. Secondly there are certainly valid reasons for abhorring female "circumcision" (a needless operation, more drastic than circumcision and without even the supposed health benefits). That abhorrence is not the result of a moral judgement.

quote:

---

In your estimation, if morals are only relative, then having an equal say in what social mores become fixed isn't a moral question either. Is it right that some people's morals get more say than others? Would it be right for a group to condemn you to die for whatever justification they could surmise? Is it immoral for them to take away your set of morals?

---

If you've got a better system then describe it. Pretending that a particular set of subjective moral views is objectively true doesn't sound like a good idea to me. And the whole business of deciding WHOSE moral views are to benefit from this false elevation seems far more open to abuse than anything we have currently.

quote:

---

No, I was using labels I did understand, but was perhaps not using a term broad enough in the spectrum because it encompassed more than just Rationalists and Postmodernists.

---

So you were just using the terms as if they were interchangeable, without explaining the relevance of either - or even explaining what you meant by "rationalists" just to fool us into thinking that you didn't know what or who you were talking about ?Come off it.

quote:

---

That would be great, but its unfeasible, so, no, that's not what I'm after.

---

OK, so your big problem is something that can't be solved.

quote:

---

've stated, in no uncertain terms, that I should have used a term more broad than just Rationalists and Postmodernists. You seem bent on keeping the argument at the level of definitions. What is left, presumably, is mowing down the strawman.

---

A strawman s a deliberate misrepresentation. It is not an honest attempt to understand your confused writing. There is no strawman here.

quote:

---

Chesterton's piece is not about postmodernism. However, I couldn't help noticing the parallels between Chesterton's contemporaries juxtaposed by mine. When I read it, I just had to laugh aloud. I thought I would share the irony.

​

What exactly is the message of propaganda that you presuppose for Chesterton?

---

Orthodox Christianity (as he defines it) is good. All rival viewpoints are bad. He attacks all rival viewpoints with the caricatures that you claim match your experiences (although you haven't produced even one real example). THen he goes on to present a rosy view of Orthodox Christianity which is no more realisitc. Of course it is propaganda ! What else could you call something so one-sided and distorted !

quote:

---

The popularity of something is not a determining factor alone. And I have presented a treatise, on numerous occasions, about why I believe it is immoral

---

I am not arguing that popularity is a determining factor. I am pointing out the FACT that many people have moral views without ANY good arguments for their truth. And last I saw you arguing about homosexuality you were mainly concerned with arguing for bestiality - dismissing the points actually raised against it without real argument.

quote:

---

Yours, I suppose, are exculpated?

---

I didn't say or imply any such thing. You were the one who made that implication.

quote:

---

If there was no practicality in it, there would be no need to espouse it in the first place.

---

That doesn't change the fact that in practical terms there is no absolute morality. You say that that means that there is - so far as we can tell or should care - no morality.

quote:

---

Please explain this since you are in essence saying that opposites are synonymous.

---

Of course it isn't contradictory. There is no contradiction in saying that people claim to believe something that they do not. But the fact is that I have quite often seen people who claim to believe in an absolute morality arguing against the existence of morality as you have done.

quote:

---

Whoa, hang on a minute. I am not denying that relative morals exist. I say homosexuality is wrong. You say homosexuality is right. Therein lies moral relativity. The problem is, absolute morals must exist, not only from a philosophical point of view, but in a much more tangible way. The only difference being that one is not provable by nature. But that certainly doesn't negate the truth.

---

The problem is that it is completely false. There is no sound argument that absolute morals MUST exist. There are arguments that it would be nice if they did but that is not the same thing at all.

quote:

---

What?!?!? Its not? So you are only concerned with the possible risk of health? You see nothing morally wrong with female circumcision from a moral point of view?

---

You mean that there is a moral issue completely unrelated to the fact that it is unnecessary (and likely painful surgery) on a child and on the effects it will have on her body ? Aren't those issues the only real and valid basis for any moral outrage ?

quote:

---

Secondly, I don't believe that. By concerning yourself for the safety of a human being, you are in essence espousing a moral in itself-- that its righteous to care about the well-being of others, and wicked to place them in undue danger.

---

Well first you assert that I saying that there is no moral issue and then you assert the opposite. That should clue you in to the fact that one of your statements - at least - is likely to be wrong.

quote:

---

Listening to what God has instructed. Period. But you won't bring yourself to even entertaining the notion, so that in your ambivalence, you can try and remain justified.

---

So your "better" system is that we should accept the views of people you happen to agree with as "absolute morality" because they claim to have a Big Bully in the Sky who beats up anyone who goes against them. That's obviously not a viable system.

quote:

---

What?!?!?! What in the holy heck do you call laws? Did you make those laws? Did you have a say in those laws? People-- people other than yourself, make subjective moral views objective all the time.

---

Laws are very often more practical than moral - and never claim to be absolute moral truths in themselves. The most that can be said is that some people enact their moral views into laws - but the moral views precede the laws and - in a free society = other people are free to campaign to change them.Looks like a free society is the best system available. Much better than the tyrannical theocracy you would seem to prefer.

quote:

---

For the very last time: Those who call themselves Rationalists and Postmodernists, or even those who don't call themselves either, but possess these certain traits/characteristics, tend to be of the same ilk.

---

And I still don't have a clear explanation of who you mean.

quote:

---

I then explained it, in detail, but to no avail. You have now gone on for several pages, blathering on and on about something I conceded to a long, long time ago.

​

What more would you like me to do for you, Paul? Shall I slash my wrists next to show my deference?

---

OK,. You'd rather slash your wrists than clearly explain what you mean, or accept responsibility for your lack of clarity. What a horrid position.

quote:

---

After the first three times I've explained it, you must then be doing it to derail my thread. Sure, it was an honest inquiry in the beginning. The second, for crystal clear clarification. The third time? You're using it as a strawman. You are trying to paint a picture about me that does not exist.

​

I hope the fifth time is a charm, because I'm not going over it again.

---

You haven't explained your "strawman" accusation even once. Sorry if I am "derailing" your attempt to cover over your own responsibility for any misunderstanding by making false and baseless accusations against others.

quote:

---

He gave the examples! They are a perfect illustration. Apparently, 1909, 2007, it doesn't matter. The same kind of senseless harangue exists today.

---

In other words you expect me to unquestioningly believe Chesterton's propaganda. But you weren't alive then You didn't even see one of those. Whatever Chesterton saw is it not the same thing you saw. So how about giving a REAL example ? Something that YOU have actually SEEN. Ideally something that can be checked.

quote:

---

His opinion, all of which you have as well, is propaganda? What is this slandering session then-- a frolic in a bed of roses?

---

Slandering ? Why is it slander ? Look, just because stuff is propaganda for your side doesn't make it any less propaganda. Nor is it automatically slander to criticise someone on your side (any more tha it is automatically NOT slander when your side makes false and baseless accusations against an opponent).

quote:

---

There were no points beyond, if it feels good do it.

---

Now you are engaging in building strawmen and not even bothering to read what I said. You really think that anyone raised "if it feels good do it" as an argument AGAINST bestiality ?

quote:

---

Arguing against the existence of morality, and maintaining a belief that absolute morals exist? How does that work? And how is that relevant to me since I obviously don't ascribe to such a notion?

---

You'd have to ask them - maybe they don't really beleive in an absolute morality. As you've just admitted that you don't.

quote:

---

As Dostoyevsky says, [i]"If there is no God, then everything is permissible."[/qs]

​

There is no up. There is no down. There is no light. There is no dark. There is no good. There is no bad. There is no truth. There is no falsehood. You can't live in a world like this, because its so subjective, that anyone could justify anything, for any reason. Think about it.

---

Strictly speaking, Dostoyevski did not say that. The rest of your claims are nonsense. Up and down, darkness and light - to use just two examples can exist as thet are, no God required. And nobody has any good argument why God is required for morality either.The notion of God is a boon to the self-righteous who want to excuse their own behaviour. They can say it is "God's Will" and do what they like. Or simply pride themselves on being "saved" while paying no attention to their conscience.

quote:

---

You don't get it, obviously. What difference does it make if she is in pain? Is it wrong to inflict pain upon her, or you, or some guy walking across the street? If so, why?

---

You don't feel that those are valid reasons for abhorrence ? You have no empathy, no conscience, no moral instincts ? If so it's not hard to see why you take the position you do - someonne who has no true morality might indeed be attracted to morality as a set of meaningless and arbitrary rules imposed by a "Higher Authority".

quote:

---

If we are just highly intelligent apes, why wouldn't survival of the fittest apply to us as well? Who is to say that philanthropy is to be honored, but not bashing in someone's brain for no apparent reason?

---

Survival of the fittest DOES apply to us. But it is not any sort of behavioural rule, just a fact. Your argument makes as much sense as someone protesting air travel because it is in defiance of the Law of Gravity. And in earlier threads I have explained what morality really is and why it applies. Too bad you've ignored all of that. You might have learned something.

quote:

---

It leaves you in an indefensible position. You have to give up one position in order to justify the other. You can't coherently occupy both positions simultaneously because one will cancel out the other.

---

Then I guess that you have got to go picketing airports. Since you're the one who thinks that a simplistic and superficial understanding of a natural fact should be taken as a rule to govern human behaviour. I don't and so there is no contradiction on my part.

quote:

---

How exactly did I do that?

---

When you said that I was denying that there was any moral issue in FGM and then when you said that I was invoking a moral issue. Can't you see that there is a contradiction there ?

quote:

---

You first have to examine your own conscience, and think honestly about how such a thing could derive through gradual mutations-- an absurd theory. Then you have to ask yourself how survival of the fittest and philanthropy can co-exist, since there is no reason, from a purely natural perspective, to help the old lady across the street. Why not just kill her because she is breathing your air? It has the same moral equivalence under a relative system.

---

I don't claim to understand the evolution of instincts and thought. That is a problem which requires understanding and knowledge that human science is still trying to discover. But the rest is rubbish. Philanthropy offers an ADVANTAGE to fitness - haven't you even heard of Dawkins' The Selfish Gene ?And I note that yet again you are DENYING the existence of the subjective moral systems that we do have. You really are determined to deny the existence of any morality that we actually have. Your nihilism is showing again.

quote:

---

It seems pretty absolute when the judge sentences you to life in prison.

---

Nevertheless even that is not absolute. The sentence can be appealed. The law might be changed. The law never claims to be an absolute moral fact, simply a rule that society - or the authorties in control of that society - have laid down and the penalties for breaking it.

quote:

---

I agree that it is, which is why I don't advocate a theocracy, and neither does God. Your freewill is testament to that.

---

I see you just think that everybody should freely consnet to a tyrannical theocracy. Because you want your religious beliefs to be acknowledged as the one sole force of moral auithority - and therefore to dictate all the laws. If that is not theocracy, what is ?Of course it isn't practical for other people to give up their religion, to stop "listening to God" in THEIR way. To stop claiming divine sanction for THEIR moral beliefs - just as you do.You have no practical way to achieve your desired solution other than force. No other solution to the "problem" that you claim to "see".Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.