Presup, again (was I'm just a lurker)

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

>

>CARTER

>Since you have made the assertion Till, please show me your evidence 

>that

>morals obviously exist. Are you speaking of an objective morality, or

>subjective? Are these morals Platonic, or are they simply "feelings?" 

>Who

>judges right and wrong? 

>Please "TROT OUT" this morality you refer to.

>

>-Jason

>


DTS
I'm not Till, but I did address some of the fallacies in your
presuppositional approach a few times already in detail, and I received
no responses nor comments.  However, I'll give you the benefit of the
doubt.

Morals are governed part by human nature, part by experience learned by
interpersonal interaction, and part by acculturation.  What we consider
right and wrong is influenced significantly by how others interact with
us.  It's pretty simple, really; I don't want to be killed or stolen from
because such acts directly interfere with my existence.  We dislike lying
because lying breaks down communication; lying renders social interaction
and communication unreliable.

However, morals can be, and are, distorted and perverted when saturated
by misinformation or pervasive cultural factors.  The moral objection
that almost all non-fundamentalist-Christians have toward killing babies
in the Old Testament is a perfect example.  One must first become morally
perverted by blind allegiance to a book or by a RELATIVISTIC hatred
toward another race or tribe before someone such as a fundamentalist
Christian can rationalize killing another's infants.  Following your
book, Jason, does not improve morals at all.  Rather, it desensitizes
them.

Jason, why don't you gather a synopsis of world cultures?  Show me where
cultures agree on right and wrong, and where cultures differ.  Hint: 
They will agree most in those areas that are most influenced by human
nature and social interactions; they will diverge most in areas most
influenced by SUBJECTIVE religious fears and taboos.  Since an empirical
survey of world cultures simply does not reveal the "absolute standard"
that you are looking for, why don't you tell us whose culture is right
and wrong, WITHOUT resorting to relativism or subjectivism yourself? 
Hint:  Blind allegiance to a book is not truly objective; it is
absolutely pure scholasticism, which is basically apologetics for a
purely arbitrary, subjective stance.

While you're at it, please give me ONE example of a moral standard that
does NOT have emotions attached to it, since you seem eager to distance
morality from feelings.

Instead of committing a fallacy of the saving hypothesis, e.g. "God" only
appears to be immoral if human morals are corrupted and worthless, why
don't you look for God's role in morality with the same objectivity that
you would apply to studies in which you have no vested interest?  A good
course in sociology would give you a great head start in understanding
what God's (hypothetical) role in morality might REALLY be.

That way, you won't have to look like a fool trying to explain to
everyone why murdering babies and animals is good and wholesome. 
Otherwise, people might think you have been morally perverted!

(Wouldn't being a fundamentalist Christian make one unfit to run a day
care center or tend to a neonatal unit?)












___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

• Previous message: I'm just a lurker
• Next message: I'm just a lurker
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]