Copernius, Galileo wrong. Church right. Any apologies?

[grannymh]

Or, we could view it all as irrelevant in our age, many centuries on. What those believed to be inspired all those centuries ago…may not have been. If God has something to say, can He not say it now?

Of course, God continues to talk to us now.

Warning – some people might find God boring because He keeps repeating the same stuff He told Adam and Eve and their descendants up to the time of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of all God’s teachings. Jesus Christ did not leave us orphans. (Chapter 14, Gospel of John).

Those same old truths about human’s relationship with God and with each other have not changed. Obviously, that truth has been explained by the Catholic Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, through its major ecumenical councils. That does not mean that the original truths have disappeared.

 

[pnewton]

What is it that constitutes a teaching? Is there a list to be found somewhere of teachings throughout history? I get confused when this becomes a “gotcha” game where someone can simply say, “oops, no, that doesn’t count as a ‘teaching’, try again!” or this idea that the Church can do as She pleases, violating the commandments every which way, just so long as she doesn’t ‘teach’ that.

What other classification of people is it acceptable to generalize and stereotype? Is it just to talk of Muslims being murderous, Jews being cheap, black teens being criminals? You may think it “gotcha”, but it is not too much that Catholics be given the same charity as others, and not held to a stereotype derived from the worst of us, like that rather biased cartoon a few pages back. Elements of truth in any stereotype does not justify the expansion of that characteristic to the whole group.

 

[Oreoracle]

Check out this list from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith:

To the truths of the first paragraph [NB: those which have been “infallibly proposed for belief by the ordinary and universal Magisterium”] belong the articles of faith of the Creed, the various Christological dogmas and Marian dogmas; the doctrine of the institution of the sacraments by Christ and their efficacy with regard to grace; the doctrine of the real and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the sacrificial nature of the eucharistic celebration; the foundation of the Church by the will of Christ; the doctrine on the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff; the doctrine on the existence of original sin; the doctrine on the immortality of the spiritual soul and on the immediate recompense after death; the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts; the doctrine on the grave immorality of direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being. (Doctrinal Commentary on Professio Fidei)

Thank you, this is the sort of thing I was looking for.

A few questions though: What are the “inspired sacred texts”? Are they certain parts of the Bible? Also, regarding the part about the infallibility of the Pope, we have the same issue as before: as far as I know, the Pope doesn’t say something like “What I’m about to tell you all is infallible”. For example, (and hopefully PRmerger will be reading this part too) I could point out that there is a papul bull approving the torture of heretics during the Inquisition. Does that count as infallible? Were the standards of infallibility the same centuries ago as they are now? If the standards can indeed change over time, then we have the same issue of enabling backpedaling.

What that does is leaves you in no position to tell this guy that he is 100% wrong. It leaves you in the same useless position as saying, “I believe turnips are gross. You like them. More power to you. I believe that God loves everyone. You believe that God hates homosexuals. More power to you.”

At the end of the day, that’s how ethical debates go, is it not? Let’s say that someone thinks slaughtering innocents is acceptable. I could disagree with them, point out that it would be inconvenient for them if everyone behaved that way, show them all the things humans who aren’t killed can do for the world, have them speak with other humans to kindle their own sense of empathy, etc. If I were religious, I could postulate an authority figure (i.e., God) and say that that authority figure disapproves of needless slaughter. In short, I could try to persuade them.

But none of this “proves” that slaughter is somehow wrong in an objective sense. Why should that person care whether others would slaughter his family if his ethic were made universal? Why should he care if people who aren’t slaughtered can do great things? Why should his actions take his sense of empathy into account? Why should he care what an authority figure says, or indeed even regard them as an authority? He can forsake all of these things, and then he is beyond persuading.

 

[grannymh]

Thank you, this is the sort of thing I was looking for.

A few questions though: What are the “inspired sacred texts”? Are they certain parts of the Bible? Also, regarding the part about the infallibility of the Pope, we have the same issue as before: as far as I know, the Pope doesn’t say something like “What I’m about to tell you all is infallible”. For example, (and hopefully PRmerger will be reading this part too) I could point out that there is a papul bull approving the torture of heretics during the Inquisition. Does that count as infallible? Were the standards of infallibility the same centuries ago as they are now? If the standards can indeed change over time, then we have the same issue of enabling backpedaling.

At the end of the day, that’s how ethical debates go, is it not? Let’s say that someone thinks slaughtering innocents is acceptable. I could disagree with them, point out that it would be inconvenient for them if everyone behaved that way, show them all the things humans who aren’t killed can do for the world, have them speak with other humans to kindle their own sense of empathy, etc. If I were religious, I could postulate an authority figure (i.e., God) and say that that authority figure disapproves of needless slaughter. In short, I could try to persuade them.

But none of this “proves” that slaughter is somehow wrong in an objective sense. Why should that person care whether others would slaughter his family if his ethic were made universal? Why should he care if people who aren’t slaughtered can do great things? Why should his actions take his sense of empathy into account? Why should he care what an authority figure says, or indeed even regard them as an authority? He can forsake all of these things, and then he is beyond persuading.

The fundamental truth for universal morality is –

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[PRmerger]

Thank you, this is the sort of thing I was looking for.

A few questions though: What are the “inspired sacred texts”? Are they certain parts of the Bible?

No. That is another way to say “the Bible”. In its entirety.

Also, regarding the part about the infallibility of the Pope, we have the same issue as before: as far as I know, the Pope doesn’t say something like “What I’m about to tell you all is infallible”.

What he says is “I thereby define” or “I declare” or “let him be anathema”

For example, (and hopefully PRmerger will be reading this part too) I could point out that there is a papul bull approving the torture of heretics during the Inquisition.

Please cite your source.

(As well as the source of the magisterium approving slavery)

Does that count as infallible?

Certainly not!

 

[PRmerger]

At the end of the day, that’s how ethical debates go, is it not? Let’s say that someone thinks slaughtering innocents is acceptable. I could disagree with them,

Why would you do that, Oreoracle? If it’s simply a matter of taste, why would you expend *any *amount of energy trying to convince some, say, that turnips are icky?

I would simply say, if I used your paradigm, “Turnips are icky for me. But I rejoice in your love for turnips. Eat as many turnips as you please, if that’s what your tastes define for you.”

 

[Oreoracle]

No. That is another way to say “the Bible”. In its entirety.

In that case, cop outs are still possible, since the Church reserves the right to interpret the Bible as it pleases. I would be interested if any given interpretation of the Bible were deemed infallible, though. For instance, is there an official annotation of the Bible where, next to each line, they have something like “infallibly, this line of text is interpreted to mean such-and-such”? Or can it freely be interpreted a new way as social values become increasingly liberal?

What he says is “I thereby define” or “I declare” or “let him be anathema”

Ah, duly noted.

Certainly not!

It really doesn’t matter if you’ll consider it fallible anyway.

Why would you do that, Oreoracle? If it’s simply a matter of taste, why would you expend *any *amount of energy trying to convince some, say, that turnips are icky?

I said this was an analogy, as in “these two things are similar in a manner that is illustrative of my point”. Analogy is not equality. I am aware that we are far more passionate about morals than taste in food.

One reason for this is that, unlike food, behavior can affect other people, which is why moderating others’ actions is usually necessary if you want to satisfy your own preferences. If you eat turnips, the flavor in your mouth won’t transfer to mine, so we needn’t worry about it. If it did, you can bet that I would encourage policing your diet, and you’d likely do the same to me.

 

[PRmerger]

In that case, cop outs are still possible,

That’s a nonsequitur.

since the Church reserves the right to interpret the Bible as it pleases.

Absolutely not.

The Church does NOT reserve the right to interpret the Bible as it pleases.

That’s like saying a cartographer is free to draw any map as she pleases.

I would be interested if any given interpretation of the Bible were deemed infallible, though. For instance, is there an official annotation of the Bible where, next to each line, they have something like “infallibly, this line of text is interpreted to mean such-and-such”?

There are a several verses which have been interpreted infallibly–including the verses about the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the divinity of Christ, the importance of baptism by water, the institution of the ministerial priesthood, the forgiveness of sins, the reality of original sin.

And any councils that reject the heresy du jour implicitly infallibly interprets the Scriptures which were used to support said heresy.

Or can it freely be interpreted a new way as social values become increasingly liberal?

Are you asking if the Church could one day say, “Mary is a member of the Holy Trinity”, or something else that is contrary to the current teachings of the Church?

 

[PRmerger]

It really doesn’t matter if you’ll consider it fallible anyway.

Again, you are confusing definitions here.

Something doesn’t have to be proclaimed infallibly for Catholics to assent to it.

But it does have to be a teaching of the Church.

So if you could give some examples of Church teaching (even if it’s not infallibly defined) that shows that Catholics may torture heretics, and that Catholicism endorsed slavery, that would be great.

Here we must understand “teaching” (whether infallible or fallible–it matters not), vs some theological opinions or writings of a particular bishop or (especially) actions of individuals.

IOW: just because a person wrote something,or did something, and was a Catholic, or even was a priest, or even was a bishop, or even was a…

wait for it…
wait for it…

pope…

that doesn’t make it a Church teaching.

To wit: did you know that a pope of recent history wrote a book called Jesus of Nazareth in which he speculates that the Gospel of John was not written by the Apostle John?

Now, in your understanding, since this is written by a pope, are you of the impression that this is an infallible teaching? If it’s not infallible, is it a fallible teaching of the Church?

Answer: it’s none of the above. It’s not even a teaching of the Church.

Even if it was written by a pope.

 

[Oreoracle]

That’s a nonsequitur.

The possibility for cop outs is actually quite relevant. What would it mean to say that a book contains the truth when people are still debating what it means?

Absolutely not.

The Church does NOT reserve the right to interpret the Bible as it pleases.

This is very different from what I’ve heard from several Catholics in the past, who insist that interpreting the Bible on one’s own is dangerous. Any writing requires interpretation. So if the Church isn’t the sole interpreter, then who else does so?

And if no one else does so, who has the authority to disagree with the Church if they offer a clearly incorrect interpretation? If no one has that authority, then any interpretation by the Church is correct for all practical purposes, since no one has the right to contradict it.

That’s like saying a cartographer is free to draw any map as she pleases.

Your analogy is inaccurate, I think. Maps must be reconciled with an object we can all perceive directly, the lay of the land. Also, there are tangible consequences for using a poorly drawn map. Neither is the case with the Bible. Thus there’s no easy way to test whether a given interpretation is wrong, unlike designs for maps.

It’s actually philosophically interesting to ask what it means to interpret a piece of writing “correctly”. Personally, I would consider an interpretation correct if it’s the same interpretation the authors had in mind*. I doubt the modern interpretation of the Bible is what the authors really meant to convey.

• If this weren’t true, a person could write a novel, talk about what the novel means in an interview, and then have his fans turn on him for being wrong about his own work.

Are you asking if the Church could one day say, “Mary is a member of the Holy Trinity”, or something else that is contrary to the current teachings of the Church?

I’m thinking more along the lines of the Church declaring controversial verses symbolic (think Genesis) or reflective of contemporary culture rather than God’s eternal moral law (think Leviticus). We will likely see some backpedaling within the next decade or so on the “issue” of homosexuality, for example, as it becomes increasingly unpopular to have a negative opinion of it.

 

[PRmerger]

I said this was an analogy, as in “these two things are similar in a manner that is illustrative of my point”. Analogy is not equality.

I haven’t posited, even remotely, that these things are equal.

I am simply applying your logic.

I am aware that we are far more passionate about morals than taste in food.

Why?

Why is it significant if it’s all a matter of taste anyway?

One reason for this is that, unlike food, behavior can affect other people, which is why moderating others’ actions is usually necessary if you want to satisfy your own preferences.

So are you saying that there is one way to be that’s better than another?

That is, it’s better to not kill innocents than it is to kill innocents?

 

[grannymh]

In that case, cop outs are still possible, since the Church reserves the right to interpret the Bible as it pleases. I would be interested if any given interpretation of the Bible were deemed infallible, though. For instance, is there an official annotation of the Bible where, next to each line, they have something like “infallibly, this line of text is interpreted to mean such-and-such”? Or can it freely be interpreted a new way as social values become increasingly liberal?

So far, I have not seen the words “Divine Revelation” in replies.

There is lots of ink on interpretation and infallible, but the actual Catholic issue regarding the Bible (Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth) is Divine Revelation, period. It is the obligation of the visible Catholic Church on earth to teach and preserve Divine Revelation. Teaching Divine Revelation is accomplished by Catholic doctrines which are based on Divine Revelation. Preserving Divine Revelation is accomplished by considering the subsequent doctrines as belonging to the Deposit of Faith.

In my humble opinion, going around and around about interpretation issues misses the purpose of Divine Revelation and the purpose of the Holy Spirit given to the Catholic Church on Pentecost. Interpretation of this and that misses the point of the Deposit of Faith which simply refers to the Divine Revelation contained in documents properly prepared and duly proclaimed by major Ecumenical Church Councils. For a list, refer to the Index of Citations, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. This list gives the CCC paragraphs where a specific Council dealt with a specific Divine Revelation The gift of infallibility is attached to the Council’s specific doctrine on a specific point of Divine Revelation.

When we switch to Divine Revelation being put down on parchment, we have to recognize the amount of prayer and study which precedes the opening of a Church Council. Sometimes, it takes years to search through all the previous writings and interpretations on the subject at hand. Even hymns at liturgical celebrations are studied. Check the smaller print (refer to CCC 20-21) and the Catechism’s footnotes for an idea of Church protocol in the matter of Divine Revelation. Fortunately, there is the guidance of the promised Holy Spirit. (Chapter 14, Gospel of John)

Something to think about. If every verse in the Bible automatically became a doctrine, why would the early Church spend so much time in preparation for a Church Council? Why would a Church Council be needed? Why would the Church need the wisdom of the Holy Spirit?

 

[PRmerger]

The possibility for cop outs is actually quite relevant. What would it mean to say that a book contains the truth when people are still debating what it means?

Perhaps you could give some examples of Scripture verses where the Church is “still debating what it means”?

This is very different from what I’ve heard from several Catholics in the past, who insist that interpreting the Bible on one’s own is dangerous. Any writing requires interpretation. So if the Church isn’t the sole interpreter, then who else does so?

You either misinterpreted these Catholics, or these Catholics were sorely misinformed (more likely).

catholic.com/quickquestions/does-the-catechism-promote-private-interpretation-of-scripture

And if no one else does so, who has the authority to disagree with the Church if they offer a clearly incorrect interpretation? If no one has that authority, then any interpretation by the Church is correct for all practical purposes, since no one has the right to contradict it

Well, no one has the authority to interpret Scripture in any way he wants.

That is, no one ought to read the Bible and proclaim, "The Bible says that Jesus was NOT divine.

(Also see the Reverend Fred Phelps below again for a very very good reason why we don’t want people to read the Scriptures and come to their own erroneous conclusions.)

 

[PRmerger]

Your analogy is inaccurate, I think. Maps must be reconciled with an object we can all perceive directly, the lay of the land. Also, there are tangible consequences for using a poorly drawn map. Neither is the case with the Bible. Thus there’s no easy way to test whether a given interpretation is wrong, unlike designs for maps.

The interpretations also must be reconciled with something we can all perceive directly–and that is Sacred Tradition, or the kerygma.

The Bible reflects the teachings of the Church, already given, once for all, to the saints.

It’s actually philosophically interesting to ask what it means to interpret a piece of writing “correctly”. Personally, I would consider an interpretation correct if it’s the same interpretation the authors had in mind*. I doubt the modern interpretation of the Bible is what the authors really meant to convey.

How is it that you know what the authors really intended to convey?

 

[grannymh]

I wonder if anyone thinks that Holy Scripture reveals God’s plan for salvation of humans…
And I wonder if anyone thinks that Holy Scripture reveals human’s response to God…

In my humble opinion, the brouhaha at the local trial of Galileo still exists when good-hearted individuals argue over bible interpretations instead of seeking Divine Revelation. Personally, I think the problem is that many, not all, current thinkers have lost sight of the difference between objective and subjective approaches. The obvious question is not who is the interpreter of Holy Scripture, but rather how does the Catholic Church, founded by Jesus Christ, as a visible institution properly teach and preserve Divine Revelation.

 

[Oreoracle]

I haven’t posited, even remotely, that these things are equal.

I am simply applying your logic.

My point is that you’re going beyond the similarity I had in mind, and you can make any analogy look ridiculous like that. If someone says that life is like a box of chocolates, you wouldn’t inquire how nutritious life is to one’s diet.

Why?

Why is it significant if it’s all a matter of taste anyway?

Why wouldn’t it be? Everyone seems to make the unjustified assumption that just because something is subjective, we must not care much about it. People get upset about subjective matters all the time, especially when they affect other people with differing tastes. The statement that something is subjective implies nothing about how seriously it is taken to be.

In my humble opinion, going around and around about interpretation issues misses the purpose of Divine Revelation and the purpose of the Holy Spirit given to the Catholic Church on Pentecost. Interpretation of this and that misses the point of the Deposit of Faith which simply refers to the Divine Revelation contained in documents properly prepared and duly proclaimed by major Ecumenical Church Councils.

I appreciate the list you offer, but I disagree on this point. Imagine you are given a book that is written in a foreign language that you don’t speak. You are told the book was written by a clever person, and they are so renowned for their cleverness that the contents of the book must be true. You are asked to advertise this book to others, to proclaim its truth from the rooftops in an attempt to convince everyone to get a copy of it. How much do you really know about the book in this situation?

Well, you are confident that it is true, but you haven’t a clue what that truth is, because you still need someone to interpret it for you. So when you say that the book contains the truth, you are merely complimenting its author’s cleverness rather than directly advancing any claim that the book makes.

Now suppose someone came along who had their own agenda, one that actually conflicts with the original author’s. He generously offers to interpret the book for you, and proceeds to deliberately mistranslate it to further his own agenda. You have been taught that the book was written by a competent person, so you don’t question what is translated, and so you promote a very different message than the author intended.

I know that this analogy is extreme, since most Christians do have some vague interpretation of the Bible in mind, independently of what their churches say. But it illustrates that, if you truly do give all of the power of interpretation to someone else, there is no way to correct them. Their authority is accountable to no one, except perhaps the original author, who has mysteriously not yet returned to rebuke the translators.

When we switch to Divine Revelation being put down on parchment, we have to recognize the amount of prayer and study which precedes the opening of a Church Council. Sometimes, it takes years to search through all the previous writings and interpretations on the subject at hand. Even hymns at liturgical celebrations are studied. Check the smaller print (refer to CCC 20-21) and the Catechism’s footnotes for an idea of Church protocol in the matter of Divine Revelation. Fortunately, there is the guidance of the promised Holy Spirit. (Chapter 14, Gospel of John)

I would never question the Church’s acumen or caution when it comes to their interpretations. My point has only been that the Church’s interpretation is accountable to no one (except maybe God, who never shows up to rebuke incorrect interpretations), so in principle nothing could stop them from making absurd claims.

For example, suppose the Church demoted Jesus to a mere prophet rather than the son of God as the Jehovah’s Witnesses do. Yes, I know that they wouldn’t do that, but bear with me. Who has the authority to correct the Church in such a scenario? Who has the authority to take the keys away from the Church and tell it that it’s too intoxicated to drive tonight?

 

[PRmerger]

My point is that you’re going beyond the similarity I had in mind, and you can make any analogy look ridiculous like that. If someone says that life is like a box of chocolates, you wouldn’t inquire how nutritious life is to one’s diet.

Oreoracle, it is simply the logical conclusion of your paradigm that morality is a matter of one’s taste.

The fact that you recognize its application to be “ridiculous” ought to give you pause and make you re-consider your paradigm.

Let’s examine your paradigm a bit more scrupulously:

I believe that brides should wear white. In China (I understand), brides wear red.

Imagine how ridiculous it would be if I started a discussion with someone trying to convince her how much better it is that brides wear white.

That’s ridiculous, right? :yup:

Why?

Because, quite simply, if it’s all a matter of taste and preference, why in the world would I try to convince someone that my taste is better than someone elses?

That’s ridiculous. Not to mention, a bit arrogant.

Morality, however, has nothing to do with tastes and preferences.

That’s why I can argue with someone that the killing of innocents is wrong.

In your paradigm, telling someone that the killing of innocents is wrong is as ridiculous as telling a Chinese bride that it’s wrong to wear red.

 

[PRmerger]

I would never question the Church’s acumen or caution when it comes to their interpretations. My point has only been that the Church’s interpretation is accountable to no one (except maybe God, who never shows up to rebuke incorrect interpretations), so in principle nothing could stop them from making absurd claims.

For example, suppose the Church demoted Jesus to a mere prophet rather than the son of God as the Jehovah’s Witnesses do. Yes, I know that they wouldn’t do that, but bear with me. Who has the authority to correct the Church in such a scenario? Who has the authority to take the keys away from the Church and tell it that it’s too intoxicated to drive tonight?

This presupposes that there is an Absolute Truth to which one can compare the interpretations of the CC to see if they are indeed making absurd claims.

Without an Absolute Truth your question is inutile.

So, do you believe that there is an Absolute Truth?

 

[grannymh]

I would never question the Church’s acumen or caution when it comes to their interpretations. My point has only been that the Church’s interpretation is accountable to no one (except maybe God, who never shows up to rebuke incorrect interpretations), so in principle nothing could stop them from making absurd claims.

For example, suppose the Church demoted Jesus to a mere prophet rather than the son of God as the Jehovah’s Witnesses do. Yes, I know that they wouldn’t do that, but bear with me. Who has the authority to correct the Church in such a scenario? Who has the authority to take the keys away from the Church and tell it that it’s too intoxicated to drive tonight?

Who is Rob Hanson? I may be his twin! Currently, I am a part time very heavy-handed editor/writer/researcher via
e-mail projects. And being a somewhat free spirit, I do not feel it is necessary to begin at the beginning of a post.

Frist, from a heavy-handed editor’s point of view, the article is questioning the Catholic Church’s acumen or caution by offering the point that the Church’s interpretation is accountable to no one. When the result of an action (acumen) can be a free for all since it is not held accountable by any one, the consequence is that the institution per se loses its credibility. The disclaimers --I would never question the Church or knowing that the Catholic Church wouldn’t do such and such – have no direct bearing on the unaccountable claim. In addition, evidence would be needed to demonstrate that the Catholic Church structure has no accountability to its own members.

My suggestion for a rewrite is to first address “accountability” and the “authority to correct” as separate issues and then combine them in a conclusion type paragraph.

As a researcher, I would offer to research the Catholic Church so that a clear working description is available.

Before you throw your computer at me, you do have valid concerns which have been expressed by both Catholics and others. I do not get upset because these concerns had to be expressed by the apostles before the Last Supper. Chapter 14, Gospel of John, contains a flat out answer to past and current concerns regarding “accountability” and the “authority to correct” issues. I would like to add Matthew 28: 16-20 in reference to these issues.

In my humble opinion, a person does not have to believe in God in order to study and understand the structure of the visible Catholic Church. Different worldviews are not a problem for me. My wish is that individuals have a proper understanding of Catholic structure and protocol. Then it is appropriate for them to evaluate it. Note: I may not always agree with some evaluations; but at least I know that proper information was received.

 

[Oreoracle]

Imagine how ridiculous it would be if I started a discussion with someone trying to convince her how much better it is that brides wear white.

That’s ridiculous, right? :yup:

Why?

It’s ridiculous because the dress someone wears doesn’t affect you. If someone tried to demand that you wear a dress of a particular color, you’d be pretty miffed. You would protest it even though it is just a matter of taste. People actually take matters of taste quite seriously at times.

Compare that to the slaughter of innocents. If you don’t like what a bride is wearing, you can just avert your eyes or attend different weddings. It needn’t affect anyone else. Murder, by definition, must affect someone else, and thus it will clash with another person’s tastes; namely, their preference to live.

The reason your examples seem so innocuous is because you’re only using scenarios involving a single person (what will I eat for my meal, what will I wear to my wedding, etc.). Morality comes into play when preferences clash, which is usually when multiple people cannot be accommodated at once.

A better analogy for a moral issue would be a disagreement between a husband and bride as to how their wedding will be organized. Debates about the color of dresses may actually crop up in that situation.

This presupposes that there is an Absolute Truth to which one can compare the interpretations of the CC to see if they are indeed making absurd claims.

Without an Absolute Truth your question is inutile.

So, do you believe that there is an Absolute Truth?

I’m not sure if we mean the same thing by the term. I’ve learned to be cautious when people capitalize nouns that aren’t proper, because they usually mean something highly unpredictable.

I would agree that there is a world of objects that exists independently of us, the subjects. As you already know, I don’t treat morals as objects.