Robert George: The Days of Being a Socially Acceptable Christian Are Over

[clem456]

But you need to realize that I am not arguing for my position as an atheist. I can’t argue that I don’t believe something. I guess I can debate the strength of the arguments that you might have for your belief but I am not in a position to tell you that you must find the evidence lacking. That’s your call. I’m not here to convert anyone to my way of thinking. And I generally only talk about such matters when others tell me that I SHOULD accept the evidence brought forward. It then takes a little time to explain why I don’t find it compelling.

But generally, matters discussed, at least from my point of view, are debated from a secular viewpoint, not an atheist one.

Context is everything
On CAF people are doing remote discussion of issues, aka apologetics. We are swapping beliefs and forming arguments for them. You do not want to call them beliefs but…

Just as you say you are not here to convert anyone to your ideas, most Christians face to face don’t argue for the faith or tell you the evidence for your views and ideas are lacking. You would walk away from the sandwich board Christian on the street corner, as I probably would. A friend who tried to convert you would not be a friend very long.

This is a slightly different matter from whether or not everyone believes something.
It seems you are addressing evangelizing, or proselytizing.
We are addressing the assertion that atheist do not believe something/anything.

 

[Bradski]

Seems we are disputing between the following:

I do not believe in gods. (which is claimed is “not belief”)
or
I believe there are no gods…

OK, to make everyone happy…

‘I positively believe that no gods exist’.

I’m not sure what’s supposed to happen now.

 

[Bradski]

Let’s break this down shall we?

Now can you do the same with material things? Or do you want to qualify your earlier statement to just include people?

 

[vz71]

OK, to make everyone happy…

‘I positively believe that no gods exist’.

I’m not sure what’s supposed to happen now.

It is good to see that you can gracefully step back from an indefensible position.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Now can you do the same with material things? Or do you want to qualify your earlier statement to just include people?

I thought I did.

…some would stay out of the entire moral problem by claiming it is none of their business – thereby making a false equivalence between their feelings or “valuing” something or someone and the value intrinsic to that object or person. Gold has functional value but people ought not be valued as means to ends, which implies human beings have intrinsic value even if not felt or recognized.

In other words, material things have value within a system in terms of their function or purpose toward the teleological ends of that system. Ergo the value of material things is extrinsically determined.

Human beings have intrinsic value and we recognize that when, as Kant pointed out, we never use others merely as means to ends. In other words, the “value” they have is not determined by how much they are valued by others, but is intrinsic – unlike material things.

 

[Bradski]

In other words, material things have value within a system in terms of their function or purpose toward the teleological ends of that system. Ergo the value of material things is extrinsically determined.

So the only value that is determined for the lolly sticks as far as I am concerned is in the fact that it prevents the table top from being marked. And the only value of the bible is that it is just a book. And the ring is just a piece of jewelry.

Anyone reading this must be shaking their head in bemusement.

 

[Bradski]

It is good to see that you can gracefully step back from an indefensible position.

Anything to keep you happy, vz.

 

[Peter_Plato]

So the only value that is determined for the lolly sticks as far as I am concerned is in the fact that it prevents the table top from being marked. And the only value of the bible is that it is just a book. And the ring is just a piece of jewelry.

Anyone reading this must be shaking their head in bemusement.

We were speaking of material objects, were we not?

How are the values of a ring, the physical book of the Bible and "lolly sticks” determined in your view except with reference to their place in the wider realm of things?

Are you saying that material objects: book (cover and pages), ring or lolly sticks have some value determined simply by what they are? Are they not valued as significant with respect to their function or what they represent within the real world?

If not, you will have to explain to me how a book is valued simply with respect to its being a book, a ring simply with respect to being a round of metal and a lolly stick… well, you’ve lost me on that because they make splendid long bows ….gave the British some advantage, I am told, in wars against the French, but they lost their value when training, skill and fitness declined. A shame really because they are no longer valued as weapons of war, since their only value derived from that purpose. Well, okay, I’ll grant you that they still have some value to collectors.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Bradski]

How are the values of a ring, the physical book of the Bible and "lolly sticks” determined in your view except with reference to their place in the wider realm of things?

The best thing about beating one’s head against a brick wall…it feels great when you stop.

 

[clem456]

Anything to keep you happy, vz.

It’s difficult to have an honest discussion using false premises about human beings.

It’s like denying that all people have the need to love and be loved.
There are people who might deny the need for love, but you will not have a coherent discussion if a basic human trait cannot be agreed upon.

The denial of human traits is a bad thing, because it leads us to deny those human traits ( I know, it is circular), and leads us to speak and act in prejudice based on the false assumption.

 

[Bradski]

Am I making false premises somewhere?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Am I making false premises somewhere?

Well, for one…

…merely because a material object is valued for one purpose does not preclude it from being valued for OTHER purposes, reasons or merits, as well. Those values are determined within the context of wider reality, from a perspective extrinsic to the objects themselves. This is not the way the value of moral subjects is determined.

So the **only value **that is determined for the lolly sticks as far as I am concerned is in the fact that it prevents the table top from being marked. And the only value of the bible is that it is just a book. And the ring is just a piece of jewelry.

Anyone reading this must be shaking their head in bemusement.

The fact that material things are valued as extrinsically determined within the context of wider reality does not entail anything like “only value.”

Not sure why you are beating your head against a brick wall except that your thinking may be one dimensional in drawing single implications where statements imply nothing of the kind.

 

[Bradski]

If you want to argue values are relative you will need to do so…

I think I might say something along the lines that…merely because a material object is valued for one purpose does not preclude it from being valued for OTHER purposes, reasons or merits, as well. Those values are determined within the context of wider reality, from a perspective extrinsic to the objects themselves.

That is, the value that someone places on something, and hence the value that it actually has to that person, is relative to the purposes, merits or reasons determined by the person making that valuation.

This is not the way the value of moral subjects is determined.

Ah, that all people have equal value. Nice concept. But not in my world. Maybe treat them equally, all things being equal in themselves. But that’s as far as it goes. I’ve never been overtly fond of this ‘love your enemy’ type of thinking. You can love him if you like. But it seems a little hypocritical to say that you love your child’s rapist as you beat him to death.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I think I might say something along the lines that…merely because a material object is valued for one purpose does not preclude it from being valued for OTHER purposes, reasons or merits, as well. Those values are determined within the context of wider reality, from a perspective extrinsic to the objects themselves.

That is, the value that someone places on something, and hence the value that it actually has to that person, is relative to the purposes, merits or reasons determined by the person making that valuation.

Sure, no problem with this with regards to material objects.

There is a huge gap, though between how objects are valuated and how human beings are. There is not an equivalency to be made between the two without jeopardizing your moral view entirely.

Ah, that all people have equal value. Nice concept. But not in my world. Maybe treat them equally, all things being equal in themselves. But that’s as far as it goes. I’ve never been overtly fond of this ‘love your enemy’ type of thinking. You can love him if you like. But it seems a little hypocritical to say that you love your child’s rapist as you beat him to death.

This really doesn’t speak to the issue of how the value of human beings as opposed to material objects is determined. Whether or not you are justified in your treatment of some humans under some conditions is a different question entirely.

I would also suppose that “love your enemy” if taken as strictly prescribing certain feelings you should have for your enemy is not the way it was intended by Christ. The Church views “love” not in terms of an emotional way of “seeing” enemies, but rather a determination to will the ultimate good for them. In fact, willing that with regard to the rapist would be quite consistent with stopping them from raping a child since committing rape is not conducive to the rapist’s moral well-being, is it? On the other hand, beating them to death after the fact may be emotionally satisfying, but not when it ends up turning yourself into a hateful being – that would entail a victory of evil over not just the rapist, but also as a consequence, over you, as well.

I wouldn’t see exhibiting the virtue of self-control in this instance and letting God determine the outcome of justice would be an unreasonable course of action. Now, of course, not believing in God and not believing that justice will ultimately be properly dispensed is a problem for atheists, which is why, perhaps, you view the Christian response to be “hypocritical.” Personally, I don’t.

 

[clem456]

I think I might say something along the lines that…merely because a material object is valued for one purpose does not preclude it from being valued for OTHER purposes, reasons or merits, as well. Those values are determined within the context of wider reality, from a perspective extrinsic to the objects themselves.

That is, the value that someone places on something, and hence the value that it actually has to that person, is relative to the purposes, merits or reasons determined by the person making that valuation.

Ah, that all people have equal value. Nice concept. But not in my world. Maybe treat them equally, all things being equal in themselves. But that’s as far as it goes. I’ve never been overtly fond of this ‘love your enemy’ type of thinking. You can love him if you like. But it seems a little hypocritical to say that you love your child’s rapist as you beat him to death.

To say that all human beings have equal value is not to say that all human beings are “the same”.
That’s nonsensical. Every human person is unique, and so we are not the equal in the sense of “sameness”.

All human beings objectively have the value “human”.
All humans exist.

Is the existence of one human being of more value than another?

Before you point to your “child’s rapist” as an example of a worthless human being, observe that the value “human existence” is an objective value. It is not bestowed by any person. The value “human” simply is.

If you want to make human value subject to something other than itself (let’s leave “The Creator” out of it for sake of discussion), what do you propose to subject it to?
If “human” is not an intrinsic value to a human person, who decides who is human and who is not?
I’m sure you can see the problem.

Most answers boil down to “political whim”…whatever people and power decide it to be.

If you recognize the value of humanity, from there you can probe what it means to be human.
Human beings have bodies.
Human beings have rational souls (or are rational creatures if you don’t like “soul”).
And the various traits common to all people. (we just talked about one of them: “belief”)

 

[sticknstring73]

Getting back to the thread, imho Mr. George is correct. The easy days are finito.

 

[Exiled_Child]

Getting back to the thread, imho Mr. George is correct. The easy days are finito.

Alas, it seems all too clear that you’re right.

If I may, I’d like to reiterate post #131:

**We should just learn to relish being socially unacceptable then.

Christ certainly couldn’t have less about being socially acceptable.**

Being socially unacceptable should become our strength, rather than a source of embarrassment.

 

[sticknstring73]

Alas, it seems all too clear that you’re right.

If I may, I’d like to reiterate post #131:

**We should just learn to relish being socially unacceptable then.

Christ certainly couldn’t have less about being socially acceptable.**

Being socially unacceptable should become our strength, rather than a source of embarrassment.

Exactly. I think upon reading more about Christianity, and Catholicism especially, realized that it has never been socially acceptable. Its a world where people have never fully understood good from evil because of their fallen nature. It would seem that many people are going to be upset when their beliefs are put to the test and we discover just how on the outside of things we really are.