Keith Devens .com

I would have to dissagree somewhat. Indeed there are people who seek the truth and a good debate helps define what they are looking for. But, some people look for a good debate because they think the truth you believe is wrong and that you should believe their truth. In which case no amount of reasoning or coaxing on your part will get them to change their point of view in which case you end up with a classic flame war.

Debating with a person like this usually leads to no where and you end up questioning eachother intellegence in the end. Then people get upset and huffy blah blah . . . The thing is though since there will always be two sides to a topic you will always run into someone who things their side is right. They could beleive that eatting babies will prolong their life and no ammount of moral or scientific evidence will sway them. Its just like me trying to convince you that God does not exist and christianity is a hoax. I doubt it would be possible. I might have the most compelling evidence, like I know a guy who was buddies with Jesus and Jesus told him it was a big prank and that he was no more a miracle then Sigfreid and Roy.

What I'm saying is not all debates are going to end in futility, I'm willing to change my views on something if someone presented a compelling point. However, there are somethings in my life you probably wouldn't beable to change my thoughts on.

The funny thing is the people who like to debate the most are the people who are more set in their ways. Wacky, ain't it.

that last post was mine I forgot to put my name on it.

So, how will you proceed, now that you've had this realization?

Well, here is something that might cheer you up:

Monty Python - The Argument Clinic

:-)

...or even better, the video of it:

Monty Python - The Argument Clinic (Video)

I made a request for clarification a while ago on your entry about the Bible being its own ultimate authority, and I am still interested in an explanation: "I don't follow how truth would not exist if the Christian god did not exist. Could you explain it a different way?" Perhaps there was a response, but I couldn't find it.

I find it valuable to take opposing viewpoints seriously because it is likely to show you something that you did not realize before. I'm of the opinion that an honest look into other ideas will only strengthen your own if it was right in the first place. Sometimes, it causes me to change my mind instead. I find most debates are unproductive because ideas are not broken down to the core assumptions that everyone eventually has to make. Demonizing the enemy is all to easy to do, but extremely counter-productive…

Man, that was a pretty long comment thread. I totally never got to respond to anyone. For reference, here's your comment.

In answer to your question, I'll make an analogy from ethics. For ethics to be possible, you have to have one objective reference point for right and wrong. Otherwise, if "man is the measure of all things", you simply wind up in relativism and nothing is "right" or "wrong". You merely have preferences. Truth is similar. If you don't have one objective reference point for truth it's meaningless to talk about something as being true or false. Some would counter that the one reference point is "the world", but it's not that simple.

Western philosophy has done nothing but devolve into pure skepticism. No one has been able to counter Hume's charges -- one example of which is his point about the inductive principle, which makes it impossible in principle to justify knowledge, or any factual statement about the world whatsoever. So, philosophy reached its "end" a few hundred years ago -- people since have just ignored that fact and gone ahead anyway. I argue that since they can't justify knowledge on their systems, to live their lives they necessarily "borrow" from the Christian worldview -- which does provide a foundation -- whether they acknowledge that fact or not,

By the way, did you type that "…" yourself or did your ellipsis (…) get converted to that somewhere along the way?

So, how will you proceed, now that you've had this realization?

Like you said the other day, I spend too much time explaining. I'd like to keep my responses curt from now on. Let someone ask me to elaborate if they really care. Otherwise, I'll answer any questions or objections and get on with my life.

I agree... In a debate you have to try and break things down to core assumptions, as you say. If you don't do that, then it often becomes just an exercise in showing each other examples and counter-examples.

And for most topics you can choose from endless series of examples and counter examples.

Such as when I argue with some hard-core christian friends of mine, they have 1000 stories to choose from where they examplify how the evolution theory could be wrong, or how some scientists have supported the theory of healing by prayer.

And like you say, David, those discussions become futile unless you try to break them down to some more basic assumptions than whether a scientist said this or that.

And that's often hard to do with a Christian person... because their goal isn't to explore whether the Christian truth is the only truth or not. But their goal is to collect more evidence that can support their belief. So, in my experience that's why it's inherently tricky to discuss with them. Because they do not WANT to pick things apart. They rather want to "keep things together", if you see.......

Otherwise, if "man is the measure of all things", you simply wind up in relativism and nothing is "right" or "wrong".

That's not right. I'm not totally in the mood to tell you why it's not right, but I could if you asked me to.

That's not right.

Well, if ethics is not objective, then it's subjective, right? How does that not wind you up in moral relativism?

But their goal is to collect more evidence that can support their belief.

Heh, well that's interesting. Because I don't take an evidential approach to apologetics, that criticism doesn't really apply to me. I'll pick apart all day. The Christian worldview is the only one left standing.

I don't have time right now, Keith..... but I'll get back to this thread later.

(Also, I'm happy that you're not afraid of "picking apart" your own theories.... )

I'm happy that you're not afraid of "picking apart" your own theories

Of course, what have I got to be afraid of?

I wish others would have the ability to pick apart their own theories. I wish more people had at least some philosophical training.

Otherwise, if "man is the measure of all things", you simply wind up in relativism and nothing is "right" or "wrong".

Ok... here goes, I have a couple of minutes now. I'll take it step wise, so you can object to either of the steps:

1) You have a group of people who have no set of ethical rules, and each man can decide on his own what is right and what is wrong.

2) This will create (as you also state) chaos. The persons will have conflicting views on what is right and wrong, and there will be no order.

3) Then, after a period of chaos, a leader will emerge within the group of people, and this leader will see that the chaos within the group of people is due to the lack of common guidelines.

Note at this point that the leader person is not God or anything like God, but still he manages to see that the root of the chaos is the lack of guidelines.

4) To prevent chaos from continuing, the leader will create a set of rules that the rest of the group has to follow. This list of rules might in the beginning be simple things, such as "do not hit each other", "stay away from eachothers wives", "do not lie", etc.

Note also at this point that the leader isn't God. He thinks of these rules by himself simply because he understands that they are to the best for the group as a whole.

5) The leader presents the rules to the group, and he uses his position to command that everyone has to follow the rules, or else they will be in conflict with the leadership of the group.

6) The group accept the rules, and they live by them.

And that about concludes my argument. This is how a set of ethical rules can emerge from nothing, even though there were no rules to begin with, and even though no god figure was into the picture.

The set of rules that now work within the group are not "objective" as such, but they are "objective" within the group if you see.

So.... while you depict a situation where there is either objectiveness or subjectiveness, there's actually something inbetween those, which I guess you could call "group wise objectiveness".

Did you follow my train of thoughts? Do you disagree with any of the steps I took?

Keith, you said:

I argue that since they can't justify knowledge on their systems, to live their lives they necessarily "borrow" from the Christian worldview -- which does provide a foundation

The very same applies to Christianity, too. Just because there is no Bible V2.0 and gets not updated, the people still do not live like 2000 years ago. Nobody "throws a stone" as the first anymore, not even many teeth are being punched out these days anymore.

All systems borrow ideas from others. Because people borrow ideas. Because they live (has to live) together.

Oh... heh, I probably typed out the "…". I'm quite used to doing so.

You said: 'Some would counter that the one reference point is "the world", but it's not that simple.' I am curious as to what you mean by that?

Hi, Keith.... Do you have any comment on my sequence of steps on how ethical rules can arise on their own within a group of people? Do you accept that my described sequence of events can happen?

I'm curious.

Hey Elling, sorry I'm behind on responding. For whatever reason, my brain works almost exclusively like a stack. I still have to pop a few things off and then I'll respond.

Ping

Well...... I'm checking back on this question, just to see if you came up with an answer or not. I guess you might be refusing to answer because I insulted you in that other post... And that's alright. I can understand that.

But, on the other hand.... if you're delaying the answer because you're still popping your stack, then I'm concluding that my argument must have been a home run, and that you had to pop LARGE parts of your religious stack in order to answer it. And that's always a good thing.... Keep popping man!

Hey Elling,

I'm not sure which post you're referring to where you insulted me, but since I don't remember I guess it's no big deal

I'm still popping my stack, I guess. I still have a few comments on that evolution discussion I have to get to. The answer to your argument is easy... it should only take a few lines, I just haven't gotten to it. I actually started the other day and then thought "Darn, I should read everything above it to make sure I still remember the context", and then decided again to do it later.

I'll get to it... glad you're still checking back.

Oh yeah, now I remember it. It was more frustrating because you were holding me to an unreasonable standard, and one you don't hold yourself to. It also showed a lack of understanding of how belief systems work, something your most recent comment shows as well.

Elling, sorry for the long delay in responding:

This is how a set of ethical rules can emerge from nothing, even though there were no rules to begin with, and even though no god figure was into the picture.

All you just did was mix and match a little Hobbes and Rawles. Besides being a "fairy tale" that has no relation to the actual world (I could dismiss it for that reason alone), the "leader" (who you, with no justification, assert will emerge) has no authority -- he's just a man like any other. So, any person who wants to follow the leader does so only because he chooses to by fiat. There is no ethical rule dictating that he should follow the leader. If he disagrees, he could just as easily declare himself his own leader -- either for his own group, or just for himself.

What you've actually just done without realizing it is concede my point. You've admitted that one reference point (the "leader") is necessary to have ethical rules. All you've done is substitute your imaginary "leader" for God. But your human leader has no authority -- all men are equally their own leaders, and each man makes his own measure of what's "good" and "evil". You're right back where you started.

But your human leader has no authority -- all men are equally their own leaders, and each man makes his own measure of what's "good" and "evil".

No... that's where you're wrong Keith!! I don't know why you're even saying this. It's just to look around you and there are LOTS of people who have authority without being instituded by God. Please, man.... be a little bit sensible, ok?

This happens now, and it's happened a zillion times in the course of history. People are keen on being lead, kind of... Whenever you assemble a group of people with no leader, there will emerge a leader in the group after a while. This isn't even something you even need to START trying to deny.... It's just the way it is, Keith. :-)

And, as for the "people made" rules being REAL ethical rules? You know, that's only a case of definition. They are certainly REAL to the people in the group who live by them.

You may want to create a division between "man made" ethical rules and "rules made by God"... but that's more like an artificial division line, I think...

-

As for Hobbes and Rawles, I don't know anything about them. But I notice that you kind of try to knock me in the head with your "knowledge".... please don't do that. It doesn't work.

You've admitted that one reference point (the "leader") is necessary to have ethical rules.

Yes, a reference point is needed... only that the reference point doesn't have to be God. A man can be a reference point for another man... Like I said: This happens all the time. No need in denying it, Keith. You're fooling yourself if you do.

If you want an example: A father or mother is always the reference point of a child when it comes to right and wrong. The child isn't turning to God in order to find out what is right or wrong... he's turning to his parents. Right?

But I notice that you kind of try to knock me in the head with your "knowledge".... please don't do that.

My point wasn't to impress you, it was to point out that your view wasn't original -- their ethical theories have been around for a while, and I don't know any philosopher who thinks that either philosopher provided an acceptible basis for ethics. We debunked Rawls in my intro to ethics course years ago, for instance. And Rawls' position is closer to providing a basis for ethics than yours is.

It's just to look around you and there are LOTS of people who have authority without being instituded by God.

Without God, when you have leaders, either they have power through tyranny, or they have power because it's given to them by the people as in a representative government. I doubt you'd say that a tyrannical leader (even a benevolent dictator) has moral authority just because he's the leader. As for a representative government, you wind up with the problem of majority rule. Does "the leader" (assuming there's only one) have moral authority simply because most people decide to follow him? I'd be surprised if you'd assent to that, or to the position that "the majority is always right".

As I see it, you're confusing legal authority with moral authority. You've also ignored the question of what happens if I become my own leader and get people to follow me. Why can't I make my own ethical rules? Is it only because your "leader" has followers that you think he has authority? What makes them right?

They are certainly REAL to the people in the group who live by them.

Do the people in the group follow them because they choose to follow them, or are they obligated to follow them? If so, what obligates them?

P.S. Shows what I know... I spelled Rawls incorrectly in my above post... I think it was because I typed Rawls right afer Hobbes, so I put the "es" in there.

A man can be a reference point for another man

So, if another person can be a reference point for me, why can't he be a reference point for himself, and why can't I be a reference point for myself?

A father or mother is always the reference point of a child when it comes to right and wrong.

Surely you don't believe parents are always and infallibly right? Even so, different parents have different moral standards they teach their children. Which moral standards are right?