I fully realize the Meaning. In this Use, I Realize that it's about Him. I just find it Pretentious. Not that I'm singling you out... it is an admittedly all too common practice. It usually means assertion of some belief without any evidence what-so-ever... simply because it is a wish fulfillment to make it, whatever it is, an absolute Truth - by declaration. Of course the believer doesn't see that. I give as an example my nephew who is currently in love with a cheating, lying, immature witch. For him, his love is Truth. For everyone else, including him in six months, it is a total sham brought on by tons of hormones, intense emotion, and wishful and unclear thinking. Truth... Magical thinking, that is...

Those who believe in Truth hold on to their beliefs in the face of contradicting evidence... well... as you freely admit.

Was there something in there about the soumd of trees falling in a deserted forest?

you may find it pretentious, but - entirely apart from christianity, which you just sort of insert into my comments without it having been there - the discussion over universality will use a capital letter to signify, you know, a universal term itself.

but hey, the philosophic tradition was clearly incomplete until you came along to set everyone straight, eh? clear the way for dexter, who has evidently resolved this ancient deadlock between the limits of reason and the role of the supernatural and the metaphysical.

" to have a valid criticism, you need to find another way beyond "show me the proof.""

Way to stack the deck so that your unsubstantiated assertions absolve you of any accountability as to whether or not they are true. You just assert them to be true and tell us we cannot say otherwise, because you say so. But somehow you still leave for criticism even though you make a logical impossibility right up front. But I'll bite, what would be a valid criticism, in your universe which precludes materialism and reason apriori?

Morality isn't something that floats out there somewhere in the metaphysical and apart from the material world. Morality is nothing but social behavior, which can absolutely be seen, observed and examined. Analyzing the question of morality apart from human society is meaningless.

*But somehow you still leave *room* for criticism even though you make *it* a logical impossibility right up front.

isn't it your job to present better arguments for your own side? :P

Not if you declare right up front that any argument from "my side" is invalid because I don't accept your assumptions. How can I, as a materialist, come up with a criticism if you say materialism has no ability to criticize your blind assertions that divinely inspired universal morality exists?

well, you need an argument for your position that at once affirms that there are limits to our ability to discern truth (or, alternatively, discover knowledge) using reason and evidence, yet also says there are no other possible ways to discern truth (or discover knowledge).

of course that is a pretty tall order, but huh, maybe that is why there has been a philosophic impasse around this issue for thousands and thousands of years.

ironically, if you could come up with such an argument, it would be absolutist (since you are denying any format of truth or knowledge except yours, which again, has well-known limits). and it is also absolutist because at heart you are saying that your position is ultimately based on force - you are forcing one framework, and excluding the potential of others.

whereas i am perfectly content to articulate the boundaries of the framework of the faithful, those who respect the existence of universal morality and of divine authority in the universe, while allowing you to say whatever you like. in practice, then, i am the relativist.

Putin you be owning 'em tonight :P

"well, you need an argument for your position that at once affirms that there are limits to our ability to discern truth (or, alternatively, discover knowledge) "

Even if it were true that I *need* to provide such an argument (we haven't been provided any reason other than you saying so), it doesn't follow that the question of morality falls under these limitations.

"of course that is a pretty tall order"

Why is it a tall order? Non-reason, non-evidence based methods haven't produced anything in the way of knowledge. Indeed it is striking how many assertions and theories produced by non-reason and non-evidence based dogmas have been struck down by reason & evidence based methods, despite the fact that the theists had the guns of the state to suppress anybody who disagreed with their dogmas.

As for the rest, I think you fail to understand irony again. I guess you're trying to make a claim that you absolutists are more 'open-minded' or something, to counter the reputation absolutists have for being nasty to anybody who deviates from their arbitrary and archaic absolutist standards. The question of relativism & absolutism is quite separate from the question of tolerance & open-mindedness. It is not "ironic" to believe that reasoning, logic, and evidence is the only method of acquiring knowledge. Because the issue of relativism at its core is *what is the truth*, not what would we like to be true. Moral relativism and the supremacy of reason & evidence as a method of acquiring truth both happen to be true.

relative.

Greg you are being foolish. If morality is universal, then by allowing Putin his alternate viewpoints you are allowing immoral behavior to flourish.

So which is it? Are you going to remain inactive and passive in the face of immoral behavior, or are you going to force your "one true" morality upon the rest of us?

Don't like those options? Neither does anybody else. But nobody is yet to find a 3rd alternative.

Just a thought on the Dostoyevsky quote:

http://home.comcast.net/~pobrien48/serial_killers.htm

Most serial killers are devoutly religious, so how does that work with the need for divinely inspired authority to keep us in line?

putin - utter nonsense. nearly all religions and religious traditions are based on divine inspiration. that is a rich legacy of history, morality, literature, and culture. you can dismiss that as nothing, but it is literally the bulk of human history. but i guess it goes to show, wherever there is a richly blooming garden, there is a materialist somewhere who seeks to turn it into an angular and utilitarian parking lot.

as for your other remarks - you perform well the role of absolutist, in your tone and stridency. clearly it is the lighthearted and casual remarks of this universalist which performatively reveal the relativist ethos.

yellowjacket - i am not being passive, i am testifying to my perspective. i have no interest in depriving you of the validity of your perspective (though it would be nice if you and your ilk would extend the same gesture). i have merely described why the response summarized as "there's no evidence! there's no proof!" fails to engage with the thoughts and traditions which underlie universalism.

"that is a rich legacy of history, morality, literature, and culture."

Which of these are 'knowledge'? As for history, religion produces myth, not history. Art and culture are not knowledge, they're aesthetics. You can argue religion has aesthetically enriched the world, but you cannot argue that religion has produced anything in the way of knowledge. All knowledge has been produced despite, not because of, religious dogma.

"as for your other remarks - you perform well the role of absolutist, in your tone and stridency. clearly it is the lighthearted and casual remarks of this universalist which performatively reveal the relativist ethos."

You evidently didn't bother to read my last retort to your attempt to distort the meanings of terms and create irony where none exists.

I mean, the universalists have resorted to bragging that they have a better temperament, that's apparently all that is left.

"i have merely described why the response summarized as "there's no evidence! there's no proof!" fails to engage with the thoughts and traditions which underlie universalism."

An odd comment ,considering this whole "debate" has been a Herculean attempt by materialists & relatavists to engage people like you, and you steadfastly refuse.

rather autistic, to deny that art, music, culture, creative inspiration, moral reasoning, storytelling, etc., are forms of knowledge. but such is the poverty of materialist reductionism.

I'm going to prove that morality is relative from the Christian perspective. (And I'm not even going to impale you on any horns of dilemmas... thats way too easy).

Assumptions: God is the font of good. What God wishes is good, because God is good.

In the Bible, God commands Joshua to carry the ark of the Covenant around the city of Jericho, blowing on ramshorns, etc. The walls come tumbling down (like the charming gospel song). The Israelites proceed to slaughter men, women and children within the walls of Jericho. And their God smiled.

At this point, my friendly believers, you must answer me this. Are massacres OK, or did God change his mind?


If God changes his mind, then morality isn't absolute. It changes.

If you think massacres are OK, then you fail as a decent human being.

"rather autistic, to deny that art, music, culture, creative inspiration, moral reasoning, storytelling, etc., are forms of knowledge. but such is the poverty of materialist reductionism."

It has nothing to do with "the poverty of materialist reductionism" (whatever that means). How are you defining "knowledge"? Do you mean "cognition of objective facts about the world? For example, "London is the capital of England" or "nothing can travel faster than the speed of light?
The definition you use needs to be relevant to the debate and in some way on the same plane as everyone you are talking with.

'If you think massacres are OK, then you fail as a decent human being. '

yeah, but it also means you failed at your 'proof' of the relativity of morals...

Am I to understand, then, that the Universal Moral Code (hereinafter abbreviated UMC for ease of citation) allows indiscriminate massacre of people based on which god they worship?

Spyman's reply was adequate, so what is your definition of knowledge, Gregoire?

Klein's point is that morality based on the changing whims of a god is the most subjective of all. It is not rooted in anything but the wishes of one individual.

There may be some Buddhists that have a absolute moral code... I have my doubts about the Abrahamic religions. If your moral code is tied to what the God of the Bible wants you to do, then, as Jack points out, it's relative in most ways and is only absolute in its blind obedience to whatever slaughter God wants performed. Liberal denominations that don't claim that all the bible is the direct word of god have an out here.

In the matter of 'universal' meaning time, space or spacetime i would like to say this: it has nothing to do with space really. Morality is about people. This means it's either universal across all persons or universal across all persons and all time. Call it peopletime if you want ;)

The physicist in me (and you, hopefully) finds this interesting. For any universal 'law' of morality to exist it would have to be person-invariant. I use invariant in the physical/mathematical sense here. It means that the moral rules/outcome should not change if you change the person or persons involved.
In the same the time-invariance can be defined. Universal across time.

Personally i think it's bogus to talk about absolute universal morality in this way because some people are just batshitcrazy.
But I guess the (legal) laws of a country should be sort of person(ality)-invariant. It should never matter who did it. Just what they did, how, why, etc and maybe their age/mental state and the like. Not their person.

Greg I think you're missing my greater point. If I believe that morality is universal, and my beliefs are the only moral ones, then it is my DUTY to impose it upon others. Simply testifying to perspective is not enough. Immoral behavior must be purged. This is and has been the stance of most organized religions for as long as I can remember, and I'm sure your voting record reflects with morality based issues? Just hazarding a guess.

My point is that moral universality does not allow for dissenting opinion since dissenting opinion is different, and thus by definition, immoral. Does that make sense?

Oh and Greg it seems pretty easy to deny the validity of moral universality. You seem to be a self-proclaimed moral universalist, so if you would, please tell me the moral code of conduct you ascribe to and I'll tell you when/where the universality of it breaks down :P

if i were to define knowledge, i would certainly include aesthetics as knowledge - art, or music, or alternatively a creative jump or intuition, are a way of knowing. people can know things are good, or beautiful, even if there is not some hard fact which makes it so. there is no objective measure that demonstrates that charity is good, or that mozart is beautiful - nevertheless it is known. and to break these things down into some constituent and mechanical explanation ("charity can materially improve the life of someone who is impoverished," "scientists can measure the parts of the brain activated by music") is to strip down the human experience to its materialist components - which is an impoverished worldview.

as for you're comments, yellowjacket, if you read what i have said here, in my very first comment i describe a universal moral position as one that is empty - we cannot flesh it out, so much as strive toward it. thus, you cannot name the a particular moral law, for example, because it will always be a social or a linguistic or a politically motivated construction, or something along those lines. and so, purging immoral behavior does not factor into my position.

indeed, dissenting opinion is essential, as people will always be striving to articulate a universal statement. while they will fail, they will formulate their perspectives in relation to one another, sometimes building on what others done and sometimes actively arguing against it.

as an example cited in this discussion, there is the moral equality of all people. in practice this is hotly contested with many different formulations of what that means, many of those formulations mutually exclusive, yet all responsive to one another and part of the same continuous human discourse on this topic. and, indeed, there is no proof or evidence that it is true. but providing evidence that it is true, is of course, beside the point.