Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Proofs of God
John
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 131 (33578)
03-03-2003 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Unashamed
03-03-2003 2:18 PM


Re: Mere Christianity
To echo PaulK, if Lewis is so compelling why have the objections to his arguments thus far gone unanswered? Perhaps you could address any of the points already made in this thread?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Unashamed, posted 03-03-2003 2:18 PM Unashamed has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 47 of 131 (33605)
03-04-2003 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by funkmasterfreaky
03-03-2003 6:42 PM


Re: burning witches
If you have the book then you have no reason to claim that it was anything other than the execution of "witches" that was under discussion. I have read a good deal of the book - although it was a while ago - but so far we have not got beyond the section available on Amazon.
And why are you so frustrated that an point raised ONLY as an example of the low quality of argument from Lewis' is from what you call a "side note" (it isn't a footnote or an appendix it is part of the main text) ? The main line of Lewis' argument is also being discussed, but you don't seem to be interested in that - instead you try to argue about this side point. Nor do you seem to be actually interested in a reasonable defence of what Lewis said even on the points that you do attempt to discuss.
Let me make it simple for you - either there is NO significant moral issue in the torture and execution of people for crimes they did not commit or Lewis' argument leaves out a relevant moral issue completely.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 03-03-2003 6:42 PM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by zipzip, posted 03-04-2003 9:03 PM PaulK has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 131 (33658)
03-04-2003 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by John
03-01-2003 11:37 AM


Did we lose you, BambooGuy? Wherefore art thou?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by John, posted 03-01-2003 11:37 AM John has not replied

  
zipzip
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 131 (33666)
03-04-2003 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by PaulK
03-04-2003 2:49 AM


Re: burning witches
At that point in the argument, Lewis does not take the existence of a particular moral system (such as a Christian moral code) for granted. Sort of like in a mathematical proof where you have introduced some givens and so can make some conclusions but not others. Or a computer program where you have defined a variable and can use it but not another variable that you have not defined yet.
Lewis' aim is not to say "witches are bad" but to say (and I paraphrase) "we today would think that these people back then who wanted to kill witches would be justified in that desire if it turned out that, in fact, witches really did eat babies and rape cattle."
His conclusion is then that the moral framework behind even this seeming discrepancy between what was okay back then and today has not changed appreciably -- eating babies and raping cattle is bad. The only thing that has changed is our ability to understand that witches may not eat babies or rape cattle. Now if we thought eating babies and raping cattle was okay, the moral framework would have changed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by PaulK, posted 03-04-2003 2:49 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by compmage, posted 03-05-2003 1:08 AM zipzip has not replied
 Message 51 by PaulK, posted 03-05-2003 10:26 AM zipzip has not replied

  
compmage
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 50 of 131 (33673)
03-05-2003 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by zipzip
03-04-2003 9:03 PM


Re: burning witches
zipzip writes;
quote:

His conclusion is then that the moral framework behind even this seeming discrepancy between what was okay back then and today has not changed appreciably -- eating babies and raping cattle is bad. The only thing that has changed is our ability to understand that witches may not eat babies or rape cattle. Now if we thought eating babies and raping cattle was okay, the moral framework would have changed.

Why does Lewis not address the morals of killing the witches in the first place, regarless of what they may or may not have done?
You see, the moral framework has changed. It was considered proper to kill people for certain crimes back then while today many people would not think it proper, even if these people had eaten babies and raped cattle.
------------------
Signature too long, 100 chars max.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by zipzip, posted 03-04-2003 9:03 PM zipzip has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 51 of 131 (33699)
03-05-2003 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by zipzip
03-04-2003 9:03 PM


Re: burning witches
I note a consistent failure among Lewis' defenders to address the point I am raising.
Lewis only offers a justification for the execution of those actually guilty of witchcraft. Since he acknowledges that ALL those executed were innocent of witchcraft he has not justified a single execution. To actually justify the executions would require explaining when the execution of someone who was in fact innocent would be justified and showing that those circumstances were in fact met. While that is not done there is indeed a real possibility that moral standards have changed.
Why is this point not addressed ? Is it because the supporters of Lewis in this discussion cannot answer it ? Or is it because they cannot see anything wrong with executing anyone accused of a capital crime regardless of their guilt ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by zipzip, posted 03-04-2003 9:03 PM zipzip has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by PaulK, posted 03-05-2003 11:08 AM PaulK has not replied
 Message 56 by bambooguy, posted 03-05-2003 11:38 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 52 of 131 (33701)
03-05-2003 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by PaulK
03-05-2003 10:26 AM


Back to the real argument ?
Although the supporters of Lewis seem to prefer discussing - or rather NOT discussing - the problems with Lewis' defence of the executions of alleged witches I would rather get on with the main argument.
Many people feel that homosexual behaviour is inherently morally wrong. Many others feel otherwise. Even societies do not have a single consistent stance.
Is either side objectively correct ? If so which one ? Can it be objectively shown ?
And most importantly if Lewis is correct, why is there such a disagreement ?
I would add that answers cannot assume Christianity to be true. Since this argument is part of the groundwork for an argument for Christianity such an assumption would introduce a circularity that would destroy the argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by PaulK, posted 03-05-2003 10:26 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Gzus
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 131 (33715)
03-05-2003 5:14 PM


WHO CARES ABOUT THE DAMN WITCHES!!!!
Just get onto the next bit ok? this is sooOOOooo Boring!

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by John, posted 03-05-2003 8:06 PM Gzus has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 131 (33725)
03-05-2003 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Gzus
03-05-2003 5:14 PM


I too am waiting for 'the next bit' but the loyal opposition seems to have vanished.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Gzus, posted 03-05-2003 5:14 PM Gzus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by bambooguy, posted 03-05-2003 11:03 PM John has not replied

  
bambooguy
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 131 (33735)
03-05-2003 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by John
03-05-2003 8:06 PM


Sorry,
I only have access to one computer, and my brother had a project he had to get out. I haven't had a chance. Later.
Evan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by John, posted 03-05-2003 8:06 PM John has not replied

  
bambooguy
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 131 (33737)
03-05-2003 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by PaulK
03-05-2003 10:26 AM


Re: burning witches
PaulK,
The reason why you see a consistent failure to defend this point, is because this is not a point anyone is trying to make. If you put words into Lewis' mouth, or anyone else's mouth, don't be suprised when you disagree.
You can't argue from silence. Lewis is not trying to justify the witch trials. You could ask him the question you've been asking, but, unfortunately, he's dead. No one is justifying the murder of innocent people, but that isn't his point.
I believe several other people have already answered your question with a similar response. I hope that you will reread that particular portion of the book. You will find that all these people have been right.
Regarding morality in general, I have already said that cultures do not agree on the application of morality. They have differences, but they are all similar. Killing rival townspeople is not always murder for some cultures, in others it is; but no culture allows you to kill anyone you want. There may be differences about sexuality, but all agree that rape is not okay. The same goes for every other moral application. There may be disagreements about application, but there aren't any in substance.
Also, using such extreme cases is confusing. Extreme cases can be helpful in most debates, but not in this particular one. What we're talking about is the idea of 'fairness', we're not trying to define it. I'm just saying that everyone has the idea that some things are 'fair' and other things are not. This has been the major point up to now.
Evan
P.S. I'll respond to some of the other posts later. "Patience is a virtue" LOL!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by PaulK, posted 03-05-2003 10:26 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by PaulK, posted 03-06-2003 2:49 AM bambooguy has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 57 of 131 (33738)
03-06-2003 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by bambooguy
03-05-2003 11:38 PM


Re: burning witches
Your response makes no sense. Of course people want to defend what Lewis said - that is their only purpose in responding. And what Lewis said was that the execution of "witches" was morally acceptable EVEN THOUGH every execution was a miscarriage of justice. That is absolutely clear. But nobody is prepared to defend THAT so instead they either try to pretend that Lewis said something else or ignore the point altogether.
Yes their responses are similar - in that they evade the point or misrepresent what Lewis clearly said. Nobody offers any argument to support their claim that Lewis said anything else, nobody deals with the issue of wrongful executions despite the fact that it is clearly implicit in Lewis own statements.
As to the rest of your post.
Your claim that there are no differences in "substance" in moralities are clearly false as indicated by the exceptions you mention. Clearly there are such differences. There are restrictions on who can kill who but no absolute agreement on what those limits should be. Is that not a substantial difference ? That an act might be murder in one society but completely acceptable in another ?
And I have no idea what "extreme" case you are talking about. I haven't offered any case I consider extreme at all.
The issue of homosexuality is a GOOD one to discuss for this argument since the disagreements are quite clear. If we cannot discuss cases where there are obvious problems for Lewis' argument then there is no point in trying to discuss at all. Indeed at present I see little point in even attempting to discuss the issues on the grounds that so far the responses have been on the lines of "Lewis must be right so you must be wrong". Well if you are a dogmatic worshipper of C. S. Lewis that might be good enough but for those of us who hoped for a serious discussion this thread has been a severe disappointment. The best I can say is that the lack of serious response is itself confirming evidence for my position.
[This message has been edited by PaulK, 03-06-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by bambooguy, posted 03-05-2003 11:38 PM bambooguy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 03-06-2003 1:08 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 62 by bambooguy, posted 03-06-2003 9:37 PM PaulK has replied

  
funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 131 (33765)
03-06-2003 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by PaulK
03-06-2003 2:49 AM


fairness
I have been hoping to discuss the contents of this book for quite some time now, though I am finding this conversation unproductive. I will be reading this book over again to refresh my memory. I encourage Paul k and John to please read this book too, it is a very short and simple book that will not take up more than a few hours of your time.
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 will have more to say when I have re read the book.
------------------
Saved by an incredible Grace.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by PaulK, posted 03-06-2003 2:49 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Gzus, posted 03-06-2003 2:12 PM funkmasterfreaky has replied
 Message 61 by PaulK, posted 03-06-2003 6:58 PM funkmasterfreaky has not replied
 Message 75 by John, posted 03-09-2003 8:59 AM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

  
Gzus
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 131 (33772)
03-06-2003 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by funkmasterfreaky
03-06-2003 1:08 PM


Re: fairness
quote:
Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
What are your ideas on where this came from?
what's wrong with 'we don't know yet'. Although we expect that science will provide an answer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 03-06-2003 1:08 PM funkmasterfreaky has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 03-06-2003 3:11 PM Gzus has not replied

  
funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 131 (33778)
03-06-2003 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Gzus
03-06-2003 2:12 PM


Re: fairness
what's wrong with 'we don't know yet'.
Nothing wrong with that, I was just wondering if there were some ideas.
------------------
Saved by an incredible Grace.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Gzus, posted 03-06-2003 2:12 PM Gzus has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024