Proofs of God

There seems to be an inconsistency in your words and your actions. YOu claim that you want to discuss the book but so far the only point you have chosen to discuss has been one side issue. The points on Lewis' main line of argument have been ignored by you. Indeed even in your own posts you misrepresented the book on the one point you have chosen to discuss (post 43).However I am not convinced that very small children do understand fairness. Lewis' argument on the point IIRC begged the question by assuming that the motivation was a desire for "fairness" rather than greed or selfishness. In my view the only thing that can show a desire for "fairness" is when it is shown that it is a desire for OTHERS to be treated fairly. In my view fairness is learnt as part of socialisation and is part of the recognition of others as being human and the development of empathy. Steven Pinker had some interesting things to say in _How the Mind Works_ and while I certainly would not endorse everything Pinker says it is worth at least dipping into it.For instance the section on "altruism" ("I AND THOU" p 396-407) especially the section on Trivers' work on reciprocal altruism (p 402-5) or the section "FRIENDS AND ACQUAINTANCES" (p502-9).You might also like to consider these statements.
"In _Human Universals_, the anthropologist Donald Brown has assembled the traits that as far as we know are found in all humn cultures. THe yinclude presitge and status, inequality of power and wealth, property, inheritance, reciprocity, punishment, sexual modesty, sexual regulations, sexual jealousy, a male preference for young women as sexual partners, a dividion of labour by sex (including more child care by women and greater public dominance by men), hostility to other groups and confict within the group, including violence, rape and murder."
Since these commonalities are not all moral it is worth asking if there is a good reason to attribute a special origin to some but not others of these.

PaulK,
Yes, I do want to defend what Lewis has said, but not what you say he's said. You've misunderstood what Lewis is saying. I think I've made this clear already, so I won't go into it any further.You can believe whatever you want about homosexuality, but it doesn't help the discussion. Homosexuality is not a good example because it's irrelevant. I'm not trying to say what a universal moral code is or should be (neither is Lewis). I'm saying that every culture has the idea of morality -- i.e. they should not do some things. They may not agree on what they should not do, but they agree that there are some things that should not be done.It sounds like you think I am making up what Lewis is saying. Go back and read it, I'm not. You have the burden of proof, you're the one saying that Lewis is supporting wrongful executions. You have to prove it.EvanP.S. I'm willing to debate these issues with you. But please refrain from pejorative language like "dogmatic".

No, you have not made it clear that I have misunderstood what Lewis was saying. You have made it clear that you assert that but you have not shown any other viable interpretation.It is quite clear that Lewis is defending wrongful executions(although Lewis may not have thought it through enough to realise that - which is really my point).
Since Lewis states that there are no "witches" in the relevant sense it follows that everyone executed for that offence was wrongfully executed, since they cannot possibly be guilty. So all it remains for me to show is that Lewis was defending the executions of witches.
The question Lewis was responding to was :
"Three hundred years ago people were putting witches to death. Was that what you call the Rule of Human Nature or Right Conduct?" (p14)Lewis' argument is intended to answer that it WAS "Right Conduct", how can it possibly be interpeted otherwise ?Moving on. If Lewis' "Law of Human nature" is restricted to broad similarities which are found in all cultures then how can we call one cultures morality superior to anothers as Lewis claims ? And how could such a comparison be made on anything other than the shared moral base ? If it were made on that basis then such a claim could be made on the without assuming anything more than an intrasubjective moral foundation which has already been accepted as existing.What is more, if there is no objective moral rule against homosexuality - and if you assert that Lewis' law is restricted to broad ideas like having some restriction on killing then there can be no such rule - then another problem appears. There are clearly people who regard homosexual behaviour as objectively immoral - but if there is no such rule this must be, in fact, a subjective view. If people can make this sort of error then it further undermines the idea introduced by the comparison of moralities because it is clearly the case that people can mistake subjective views on moral issues for objective truths.

In his book "Mere Christianity" Lewis proposes a "moral law", something like a natural law, ie. gravity. The difference he points out it is that unlike natural laws we have a choice whether or not to obey the "moral law".Why do we feel some things are wrong? Why do we get that feeling of guilt when we disobey that law? Why do we get angry when we feel someone else has disobeyed that law? Where did the concept of conscience come from?------------------
Saved by an incredible Grace.[This message has been edited by funkmasterfreaky, 03-07-2003]

quote:

---

Where did the concept of conscience come from?

---

I have a clue about that one! Have you ever had a half-grown puppy leave a puddle in the floor?

I'm talking people here, and pissing on the floor isn't exactly a question of morals.------------------
Saved by an incredible Grace.

You asked about conscience. The look in a puppy's eyes when he's caught puddling is essentially identical to that in a five-year-old child caught in an infraction of the rules. We just learn to bluff our way out of it as we get older, but the inside guilt is the same. That's conscience.

Is this to suggest that moral thinking or conscience is limited to the Christian? Or the Christian world, at least? Or, conversely, that a better title for the book might be "Mere Humanity," or "Mere God," or anything which speaks to the fact that the cited characteristics are common throughout mankind?...as is the opposite, of course; greed, jeleousy, hatred, spite, etc., are just as common.Peace
-Shiloh

quote:

---

funkmasterfreaky
In his book "Mere Christianity" Lewis proposes a "moral law", something like a natural law, ie. gravity. The difference he points out it is that unlike natural laws we have a choice whether or not to obey the "moral law".

---

Well. Any philosopher will tell you that such a 'moral law' is impossible for us to know since it is impossible to derive ethics logically from our natural environment. i challenge anyone to prove for instance that cold-blooded killing is wrong, using empirical evidence. You will find that it is impossible.Lewis must therefore make some reference to a 'soul' or similar supernatural entity upon which he departs from the world of reason to the hypothetical and, might i say, dogmatic realm.The existence of a 'soul' implies [though you might disagree] that our minds and actions cannot be explained [in principle] by science and that therefore, some supernatural/external force must be involved in our decision making. When asked to verify where this supposed cartesian 'link' between body and soul lies [i.e. in my foot, or in my head?] you will no doubt be unable to provide an answer, hence verifying the 'God of the Gaps' nature of your claim, or at least that your claim is based merely on the fact that our current lack of knowledge of the workings of the human brain, allows room for an infinite variety of religious hypotheses.Gzus[This message has been edited by Gzus, 03-08-2003]

Shiloh,The section of the book that we are attempting to discuss C.S Lewis has not even brought up Christianity yet. Lewis is discussing mankind.------------------
Saved by an incredible Grace.

In case you haven't noticed I have already gone over this. Perhaps you would like to answer the points I have raised. On the other hand if you intend to ignore what I say it is hardly a discussion.I would add that it would be an odd sort of natural law if it could be disobeyed - natural laws describe HOW things behave and if anything goes against that then the law (as formulated) is wrong. On that point, then Lewis is in error - this must be something quite different.[This message has been edited by PaulK, 03-08-2003]

Gzus,
Great point. Ethics cannot be proved by science. But they do exist. How do we explain them? A likely explanation would include metaphysical attributes.Also, can science prove everything? I would say no. It is impossible to prove that Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated president in 1860 using the scientific method. But we know it happened. There are methods other than the scientific method.Also, to clarify, this "Law of Good Conduct" is not exclusively Christian. Many, many, many cultures have a "Law" of morality. We haven't gotten anywhere close to Christianity yet.EvanP.S. John are you there?

Yes, Evan, it is impossible to prove any ethic by empirical method, but it is not impossible to explain them [i would think] since there remains the possibility that our concepts of 'right' and 'wrong' are simply a complex anomaly of the brain. Your metaphysical claim however, is entirely hypothetical since we have by definition, no 'empirical' [i.e. natural] evidence of the supernatural.As for Abraham lincoln, we do not 'know' [i.e. have absolute proof of] his existence [since there are no absolute proofs], although we choose to believe it due to overwhelming empirical evidence, plus the fact that we trust historians in this case.Gzus[This message has been edited by Gzus, 03-09-2003]

quote:

---

But they do exist.

---

Do they? I've never encountered a moral. Never stubbed my toe on gluttony, or banged my head on sloth. If these things exist, where are they?

quote:

---

How do we explain them?

---

They are labels we put on patterns of behavior. Moral == that which averages out to be beneficial under a particular set of circumstances.

quote:

---

P.S. John are you there?

---

I've had a cold. Have you said something profound?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Bamboo brought up the idea of fairness, we all seem to have this concept of fairness, even the very young. What are your ideas on where this came from?

---

I saw an experiment done with small children. The researchers paired up some kids and gave one of each pair a handful of candy to distribute. The first go round, the kid with the candy kept most of it -- say 80-85 percent or more. The next go round the other kid of the pair got to distribute the candy. Same result. But the third go round the candy was distributed more or less evenly. Why? The kids realized that if they don't share, they get screwed. Here is your concept of fairness. Of course, it gets all fluffed up for public consumption ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com