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

[Peter_Plato]

In the absence of God’s approval you try to install the church as the arbiter. But the church is just a conglomerate of individuals, nothing more. No “Body of Christ” lead by the “Holy Spirit”. And since many of the members have divergent opinions about God’s will, you resort to the argument: “those, whose actions I approve of” are the REAL Christians. And since the members of the other party assert the same, all we have is two self-proclaimed “authorities”.

For the audience this is rather funny. We see the two sides as stubborn children, in a shouting match: “I am right, and you are wrong!”… “No, I am right and you are wrong!”… ad nauseam.

Well, no, the teaching and actions of Jesus are the arbiters and the consistency of the Church – in being consistent with those teachings and acts – is the objective benchmark by which to adjudicate various opinions.

Sure, there are disagreements, but the same disagreements arise in every discipline or determination – even in the so-called hard sciences.

You are being entirely arbitrary when you claim “divergent opinions” makes moral or religious thinking entirely subjective, but ignore the fact that “divergent opinions” exist in all areas of life. So what? That only means the clear truth about things – pretty much all things – is a matter to be worked out in order to come to the truth – truth can be more obvious in some areas than in others.

You are entirely incorrect to presume that “divergent opinions” implies “no truth.” It is a non sequitur.

 

[Solmyr]

Your point ONLY holds if you dismiss entirely that Jesus was God.

As soon as you can prove this, it will be taken into consideration. But even if you could prove it, it would have no real significance. As long as God and/or Jesus both hide above the clouds all we have is YOUR word, the church, the bible and the magisterium. And none of those help you.

All Christians are convinced that God speaks through their mouth, that they (and only they) are correctly interpreting God’s “will”. Everyone else is wrong, and the shouting match continues.

This kind of “knowing trust” – operating at deeper levels than the externally obvious – is what faith is all about. It is at the level of a reality that those who rely upon third party demonstrable evidence for assurance will never know about – but is known, implicitly, by those with the courage to live by the supernatural virtues of faith, hope and charity.

And the name of this kind of “faith”… is BLIND faith. Believe without evidence, without proof, because it is VIRTUOUS. Sorry. That is also called a “cop out”. It is the modus operandi of the snake-oil peddlers, the charlatans who demand “faith”. You should raise above their level, if you can.

I would venture that finding that kind of meaningful existence is the reason you show up on these forums challenging others to show their “mettle.” You are looking for what you haven’t known but have an inkling of some kind that it exists, you are just not sure where to find it.

No need to hypothesize what my intentions might be. Don’t give up your day gig to become a mind reader. You would not earn enough money to buy even tepid water.

 

[Peter_Plato]

And the name of this kind of “faith”… is BLIND faith. Believe without evidence, without proof, because it is VIRTUOUS. Sorry. That is also called a “cop out”. It is the modus operandi of the snake-oil peddlers, the charlatans who demand “faith”. You should raise above their level, if you can.

It is interesting to read your posts because if you step back to a perspective beyond the one you insist is the true one regarding what can be known and why, your insistence on physical evidence to answer all conceivable questions looks more like THE “cop-out” than the position I suspect is the more properly basic one.

When I become conscious in the morning, the most basic critical questions that come into mind are those such as, “What meaningful thing can I do with my time?” “Why do I exist?” or “What is it of real value or meaning that I can spend my time and energy on?”

Whatever “data” or “evidence” that I can glean from the external world ABOUT the external world is not completely helpful in determining the answers to those questions. In other words, without some very basic determinations and preconceptions about value and meaning (that which you insist is “snake-oil”) those key questions can never be answered by “evidence” alone. This is why answering the preliminary questions concerning the good, the significant, the meaningful, the valuable, etc., – those answers which are required to completely resolve my need to know the whole truth – I would be left holding a less than adequate answer to those questions with reference to what it is that is ultimately of most value to me in my life.

I can invest a whole lot of time and energy gathering “evidence” about the observable things around me – the things which can be evidenced in the way you insist things MUST be – but having all of that information tells me nothing about what is most crucial for me to know to do purposive and significant things with my life.

The words of Jesus relative to this issue are: “For what does it profit a man, if he gains the whole world, but loses his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?” (Matt 16:26)

So, you are willing to barter a truly “examined life” in exchange solely for evidence and knowledge about the observable things around you – the appearances or evidences of things alone – those which can be publicly observed as if ONLY those visible things have any value whatsoever. Yet, you are willing to trade away your very self, because YOU cannot be evidenced in the way you insist ALL things MUST be to have any value whatsoever.

On what evidence did you decide to cash in your own existence for so cheap a price? There is NO evidence in the world that can tell you that your own being, your very self, is worthless and should be discounted at the price of knowing only things that can be “proven" methodically by weights and measures to others. You have made THAT decision absent all evidence and on “BLIND faith.”

You do need to read your own words…

And the name of this kind of “faith”… is BLIND faith. Believe without evidence, without proof, because it is VIRTUOUS. Sorry. That is also called a “cop out”.

Surely, you will say to me, “Physician, heal thyself of faith,” when it is you who are suffering from the same malady you accuse me of indulging. You just don’t know it because your “faith” is only aware of the appearances of the stuff around it and knows nothing of itself – it is oblivious to the fundamental reality it has already chosen to ignore but refuses to admit its own blind faith which was required to make the trade to begin with.

 

[Solmyr]

It is interesting to read your posts because if you step back to a perspective beyond the one you insist is the true one regarding what can be known and why, your insistence on physical evidence to answer all conceivable questions looks more like THE “cop-out” than the position I suspect is the more properly basic one.

You simply don’t understand. That is NOT what I insist, not by a long shot. And I have explained it several times, and you keep making this incorrect assumption.

Knowing the actual REALITY does not answer ethical questions, it only HELPS to answer them. Because without that knowledge it is futile to even contemplate those ethical questions, because they do not happen in vacuum.

It is not a coincidence that the three major parts of philosophy are in sequence:1) Metaphysics : what exists?
2) Epistemology: how do we know it?
3) Ethics: so how should we behave?

Of these parts the most important one is epistemology: “how do we gain knowledge of reality”? And that is where you insist on “empty, blind faith”.

When I become conscious in the morning, the most basic critical questions that come into mind are those such as, “What meaningful thing can I do with my time?” “Why do I exist?” or “What is it of real value or meaning that I can spend my time and energy on?”

Maybe these are your first thoughts… though I doubt it. My first thoughts are much more mundane.

The words of Jesus relative to this issue are: “For what does it profit a man, if he gains the whole world, but loses his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?” (Matt 16:26)

Back to empty speculation and mysticism. You cannot even define what the “soul” might be, and you cannot demonstrate that it exists, and yet you consider it the crucial question of your life. As I said before, if you can demonstrate your position, I WILL take it into consideration. But your word is insufficient.

On what evidence did you decide to cash in your own existence for so cheap a price? There is NO evidence in the world that can tell you that your own being, your very self, is worthless and should be discounted at the price of knowing only things that can be “proven" methodically by weights and measures to others.

The evidence for the observable reality is overwhelming. The evidence for some “supernatural” existence is ZILCH. (Mere hearsay is NOT evidence.)

You have made THAT decision absent all evidence and on “BLIND faith.”

The absence of evidence is a very strong evidence of absence… there is nothing “blind” about accepting the actual, observable reality, and discarding what is only asserted, but cannot be demonstrated.

---

It is interesting that you keep on avoiding the problem of the thread. There is no systematic “war” on Christians. The different factions of Christianity are the ones who cannot agree on important points of life. The small minority of ultra-conservative Christians is not popular today, but they are very much tolerated. We are in the middle of this farce (election process) and the Republicans all want to be the REAL conservatives. They all badmouth the others.

So rest assured, the time for the ultra-conservatives is not over - more is the pity.

---

PS: By the way, when last night my wife heard that Justice Scalia passed away in Texas, and his death was due to natural causes, I asked her if Scalia was shot to death? She said, no, it was due to “natural causes”. So I answered: “In Texas to be shot IS considered a natural cause”.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The evidence for the observable reality is overwhelming. The evidence for some “supernatural” existence is ZILCH. (Mere hearsay is NOT evidence.)

The absence of evidence is a very strong evidence of absence… there is nothing “blind” about accepting the actual, observable reality, and discarding what is only asserted, but cannot be demonstrated.

Okay, so your foundational or core principle is something like…

“Only propositions which have evidential support are eligible to be considered true.”

Where is your evidence for that central belief?

You trust evidence because it is available to you in a publicly certainable way.

Okay.

But evidence is only a first step with regard to establishing true propositions. The significance of that evidence has to be within the context of rational consideration which relies upon metaphysical assumptions. The assumptions made there are not evidential in the same sense.

Yet, you assume a number of those without evidence when you propose that only evidence can serve to establish true propositions. Your assumptions – or better, presumptions – are hidden behind your contention (a prior assumption on your part) that only evidence can provide good reasons for true beliefs.

Yet, by claiming only evidence can serve in that way you have made a question-begging assumption that cannot be established by evidence. You have turned your method into your metaphysics by fiat.

It isn’t that you have only arrived at evidence-based beliefs. You haven’t. You have core beliefs which are foundational for which you completely lack evidence. You are in the same boat as theists with that presumption but hide that little fact in your claim that you will permit only “evidence” from here on in. Yet, you establish the “here” without evidence since it cannot serve to establish your foundational axiomatic (or faith) belief.

By the way, there is a distinction to be made between “evidence” and “reasons for.” Evidence by itself is completely useless without determining what it is evidence for – and that is done by an elaborate process of drawing inferences and conclusions from other evidences and from plausible grounds or reasons for accepting certain “givens.”

It is all very complicated. Which is why your demand for one piece of evidence to convince you is pure bluster. It doesn’t work that way. Coming to reasoning about beliefs involves a great number of dependencies. Your stance that only one piece of evidence will suffice is simply an incorrect view on the matter – and you likely know that, which is why you keep punting to it in order to deflect.

By the way, there is a retired LA detective who properly treats evidence in context to arrive at the conclusion that God exists. His name is J Warner Wallace and he has written two books on the subject: Cold Case Christianity and God’s Crime Scene.

Now I don’t suppose you will actually read those because I don’t suppose that you really want to understand the role of evidence to establish the truth of things since you see it as a club to ward off those who don’t share your beliefs. But, hey, I am open to being surprised.

 

[Peter_Plato]

It is interesting that you keep on avoiding the problem of the thread. There is no systematic “war” on Christians.

I think John C. Wright more properly addresses this question.

I often introduce myself as a recovering libertarian. It is not an entirely serious introduction, but it is not entirely frivolous either.

Why “recovering”? Sad experience teaches that any ideology, even a sound one, like libertarianism, is intoxicating. The appeal of ideology is the appeal of elegance. Just as Newton reduced all motions from the orbits to apples falling to three expressions, every intellectual craves a simple formula to explain the human condition. Libertarianism is based on a single principle that limits the state’s use of force to retaliation against fraud and trespass.

Nearly all the natural moral rules all men carry in their hearts are satisfied by the simple rule that you may do as you like provided you leave your neighbor free to do as he likes. No neighbor may rob, defraud nor attack another.

The intoxication comes with each case that fits neatly to the theory. Natural morality agrees that wars to defend the innocent are permissible, as is killing in self defense. Natural morality agrees that a man should keep his contracts, and so on.

The theory says the state must remain carefully neutral in all cultural and moral questions: the use of intoxicating drugs for recreational use, suicide assisted or no, polygamy, prostitution, gambling, pornography, duels to the death (provided only all participants fully agree!) or, for that matter, copulating with a corpse on the roof of your house in plain view of the neighbors’ children playing in their backyards, and then eating the corpse, all must be legal.

For me, the intoxicating spell ended in three sharp realizations, each one as forceful as a thunderbolt.

Raising children
The first was when I had sons, and I realized that I could not maintain libertarian neutrality on how to raise my children. I had to teach them right from wrong, virtue from vice, and teach them prudence, justice, courage, and fortitude. Most of all I had to teach that morality is an objective truth. But teaching virtue is not like teaching geometry. Such things can only be taught by example. It has to be part of the mental environment. The culture always teaches the fundamental values of the culture, parents or no, because virtue is a habit.

Every moral lesson I wished to inculcate into my children was contradicted by a thousand examples in modern media. They tried their damnedest to teach my children error, to make their filth seem normal and cool. They were trying to addict them to vice, greed and lust most of all, but also to moral apathy disguised as tolerance, and envy disguised as equality. In states where marijuana has been made legal, it’s being offered in candy and soda pop, in order to lure the young and make customers for life.

I realized that the culture surrounding me was my enemy. Imagine being an antebellum Southern abolitionist trying to raise children to believe that all men were created equal, but with the entire slave-holding society, by a thousand silent examples, teaching the opposite. Even with the best will in the world, it is not possible for a mortal man to shield his children from everything in the culture. Should I live in a cave?

Libertarianism says my neighbors do me no wrong by exposing my children to child pornography, provided only force or fraud is not used. There is no public and objective standard of decency, honesty, prudence, and justice present in the libertarian theory: but a libertarian commonwealth could not stand were its children not trained from infancy to be decent, honest, prudent and just. It is, in short, a self-eliminating theory. It is a theory for bachelors.

Turning to Catholicism
The second thunderbolt fell when I became Catholic. Libertarianism says the state must remain neutral in all questions of morals. It must be amoral. But in practice, an amoral society will not remain neutral. A libertarian Catholic should be willing to leave homosexuals alone to form private civil unions in their own way, as long as we are left alone to practice our faith in our own way – but everyone from wedding photographers to wedding cake bakers who do not wish to participate in desecrating our sacraments will be harassed or forced into compliance.

In other words, the state cannot remain neutral between the Church and the Left because the Left will not allow it. As a practical matter, libertarianism is unilateral disarmament in the culture war.

Going to war
The final thunderbolt fell when the Twin Towers fell. Libertarianism simply cannot be used to decide what is prudent and just to do in war.

Example: A village of farmers are about to be attacked by 40 bandits. The villagers, at the command of the old man leading the village, have hired seven samurai. The terrain says the only defensible spot is the canal. There are three houses on the far side of the canal. Military prudence says those three houses be burned, lest they give concealment and cover to the enemy.

The three houseowners, hearing this, break ranks, throw down their spears, and declare that they will go defend their houses themselves, separately, without helping or being helped by the village. Kambei, leader of the samurai, draws his sword against those three and chases them back into ranks.

Continued…

 

[Peter_Plato]

… from last.

Libertarians must call Kambei’s action indefensible. But by any stretch of common sense, his action is laudable, and is not only excused, it is demanded by his mission to save the villagers. Hence, libertarian logic in this wartime case leads to a false conclusion, nay, an utterly false conclusion: not merely untrue, but the exact opposite of truth.

As a father, as a Catholic, as a patriot, I realized that the self-interest crowing libertarian theory by its very nature applies only on sunny days, among adults, in peacetime. It is a peacetime philosophy only, and only among men who adhere to certain basic ideals springing from the Western cultural tradition, that is, men who adhere to Christian cultural norms even if not themselves Christian men.

Read more: everyjoe.com/2014/05/07/politics/why-im-no-longer-libertarian/#ixzz40AAgH0ln

 

[Peter_Plato]

The evidence for the observable reality is overwhelming. The evidence for some “supernatural” existence is ZILCH. (Mere hearsay is NOT evidence.)

The absence of evidence is a very strong evidence of absence… there is nothing “blind” about accepting the actual, observable reality, and discarding what is only asserted, but cannot be demonstrated.

I hope you paid careful attention to John C. Wright’s observation that…

The appeal of ideology is the appeal of elegance. Just as Newton reduced all motions from the orbits to apples falling to three expressions, every intellectual craves a simple formula to explain the human condition. Libertarianism is based on a single principle that limits the state’s use of force to retaliation against fraud and trespass.

This is precisely why your position regarding evidence fails. It fails because it leads only to useless platitudes like “absence of evidence is very strong evidence of absence.” So what? Our lives are filled with demands that require us to choose from alternatives. Alternatives which force us to make decisions and to do so at great cost. Often the “evidence” we have available to us in making the choices is scant, at best.

Even more crucial, the “evidence” for any fundamental position we take regarding reality as a whole is not only scant but entirely absent unless we begin with a fundamental position and view evidence in light of it.

This is akin to the seven samurai story in Wright’s article. We need to take a defined and fundamental moral position with regard to how we will approach the world around us. There is no amount of evidence possible which will provide the grounds for that position – we have to take a stand based on principle.

You are as guilty of that as you accuse theists of doing. It is just that you feel justified by your hidden principles and assumptions to view “evidence” as your consort. She might be, but she doesn’t get you into the strictly monogamous bound with her that you keep touting without your starry-eyed submission.

 

[Solmyr]

Okay, so your foundational or core principle is something like…

“Only propositions which have evidential support are eligible to be considered true.”

You are already WRONG here… That is NOT what I said or insinuated.

Where is your evidence for that central belief?

You confuse propositions about the reality and the meta-propositions about epistemology. An elementary mistake to confuse the two different parts of philosophy. An epistemological method is neither “true” or “false”. It either “works” or “does not work”. And whether it works or not, can only be ascertained by comparing the result of the method with its referent.

 

[edwest2]

… from last.

Thank you, very much, for the post ending at # 88.

Ed

 

[Bradski]

This is something of a tautology, isn’t it? If you are in a minority (and I would say that you are on many major positions that the Catholic Church holds), then by definition, the majority of people will disagree with your position.

As far as abortion is concerned, over 40% of women who have abortions have attended church in the last month. The majority of women who have abortions are Catholics.

lifewayresearch.com/files/2015/11/Care-Net-Final-Presentation-Report-Revised.pdf

Over 50% of Catholics support abortions in almost all cases.

lifesitenews.com/news/poll-50-percent-of-all-catholics-support-abortion-in-all-or-most-cases.

Nearly 60% of Catholics support gay marriages.

pewforum.org/2015/07/29/graphics-slideshow-changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

Over 84% of young unmarried adults have had sex. The proportion of those who are Catholics would presumably match the percentage of Catholics in the general population.

That you are in a minority (in the largest Christian country in Western Cicilisation) can be in no doubt. But it’s not the ‘secular left’ that forms the majority that disagrees with you. It’s members of your own faith.

 

[Bradski]

By the way, there is a retired LA detective who properly treats evidence in context to arrive at the conclusion that God exists. His name is J Warner Wallace and he has written two books on the subject: Cold Case Christianity and God’s Crime Scene.

Now I don’t suppose you will actually read those because I don’t suppose that you really want to understand the role of evidence to establish the truth of things since you see it as a club to ward off those who don’t share your beliefs. But, hey, I am open to being surprised.

To save Sol the troubleI I can say that the second one at least is the same ol’ same ol’. I read it a few weeks back and I will say that it is quite well written. It keeps one’s interest throughout. But it’s a rehash of the usual arguments albeit tied in quite nicely to Wallace’s experience with actual crime scenes. He seems quite a genuine guy.

But what he has written adds nothing at all to the weight of the arguments themselves. Well, they might if you knew nothing about them in the first instance.

 

[Peter_Plato]

To save Sol the troubleI I can say that the second one at least is the same ol’ same ol’. I read it a few weeks back and I will say that it is quite well written. It keeps one’s interest throughout. But it’s a rehash of the usual arguments albeit tied in quite nicely to Wallace’s experience with actual crime scenes. He seems quite a genuine guy.

But what he has written adds nothing at all to the weight of the arguments themselves. Well, they might if you knew nothing about them in the first instance.

In other words, we should take it on your authority that Wallace’s arguments – because they are “rehashed” – don’t work. I see. No attempt to actually address the arguments, merely assume that they “don’t work” because you declare that they don’t.

This, ignoring the fact that the reason I proposed Wallace’s book is to demonstrate how evidence is properly to be used in an argument – i.e., that evidence or lack of it, by itself, doesn’t constitute an argument. You seem to have missed the point that the reason I suggested Wallace’s book is because it demonstrates the proper role of evidence.

Care to make any actual observations addressing that point – showing where or why Wallace improperly uses evidence?

In other words, dismissing evidence for a particular conclusion – as Solmyr does – purely BECAUSE “there is no evidence” for that conclusion is a presumption rather than an argument. He needs to show how the evidence does not imply the conclusion rather than rule all evidence as inadmissible BECAUSE he doesn’t agree with the conclusion.

Now, for you to merely claim that you have read the book and find nothing but the “same 'ol same 'ol” tells us nothing. In fact, there isn’t even evidence in your post that you did, in fact, read the book nor do you make any case that the “rehashed” arguments don’t work, you simply declare that they don’t by assertion. I am sure that will convince a predisposed Solmyr, but that is about as far as it goes.

 

[Peter_Plato]

This is something of a tautology, isn’t it? If you are in a minority (and I would say that you are on many major positions that the Catholic Church holds), then by definition, the majority of people will disagree with your position.

As far as abortion is concerned, over 40% of women who have abortions have attended church in the last month. The majority of women who have abortions are Catholics.

lifewayresearch.com/files/2015/11/Care-Net-Final-Presentation-Report-Revised.pdf

Over 50% of Catholics support abortions in almost all cases.

lifesitenews.com/news/poll-50-percent-of-all-catholics-support-abortion-in-all-or-most-cases.

Nearly 60% of Catholics support gay marriages.

pewforum.org/2015/07/29/graphics-slideshow-changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

Over 84% of young unmarried adults have had sex. The proportion of those who are Catholics would presumably match the percentage of Catholics in the general population.

That you are in a minority (in the largest Christian country in Western Cicilisation) can be in no doubt. But it’s not the ‘secular left’ that forms the majority that disagrees with you. It’s members of your own faith.

So the truth of things is merely that which the majority determines? That is your “argument?” I am sure there is a fallacy there, somewhere, no?

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=2053&pictureid=17329

Oh, I see, moral truth is always merely subjectively determined, therefore whatever lots of subjects decide is the moral truth, THAT becomes the moral truth. I think that argument has been rehashed in many ways, many times, and still hasn’t made itself palatable to anyone who seriously engages with the question with a discerning nose and half an eye for the truth, no matter how often you serve it up.

Your presumption, of course, – and it IS a presumption – is that moral truth is a purely a subjective matter.

 

[Solmyr]

So the truth of things is merely that which the majority determines?

Hardly. The point is that the church is unable to convince even its own followers about your so called “truth”.

You try to avoid the conclusion: “atheists are not your enemy”. Your fellow Catholics are the ones who stopped tolerating your ultra-conservative views.

By the way, there is no such thing as “absolute moral truth”. Without considering ALL the circumstances one cannot make a judgment. Sure we consider the Nazi’s actions unacceptable, but that is not an absolute condemnation. You seem to be confused about “absolute” statements. Which is no surprise, since you would consider senseless genocide to be acceptable, IF performed or commanded by God.

 

[vz71]

Hardly. The point is that the church is unable to convince even its own followers about your so called “truth”.

You try to avoid the conclusion: “atheists are not your enemy”. Your fellow Catholics are the ones who stopped tolerating your ultra-conservative views.

By the way, there is no such thing as “absolute moral truth”. Without considering ALL the circumstances one cannot make a judgment. Sure we consider the Nazi’s actions unacceptable, but that is not an absolute condemnation. You seem to be confused about “absolute” statements. Which is no surprise, since you would consider senseless genocide to be acceptable, IF performed or commanded by God.

So are you saying that the majority opinion determines truth or the majority opinion does not?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Hardly. The point is that the church is unable to convince even its own followers about your so called “truth”.

You try to avoid the conclusion: “atheists are not your enemy”. Your fellow Catholics are the ones who stopped tolerating your ultra-conservative views.

By the way, there is no such thing as “absolute moral truth”. Without considering ALL the circumstances one cannot make a judgment. Sure we consider the Nazi’s actions unacceptable, but that is not an absolute condemnation.

In other words, your moral position is that Nazi actions in the second world war should NOT be absolutely condemned as morally wrong. They were merely unacceptable to us, morally speaking.

How is that NOT an “absolute" moral position?

 

[Solmyr]

So are you saying that the majority opinion determines truth or the majority opinion does not?

What kind of “truth” are you talking about? Objective propositions about the reality? Like “this is a piece of iron”. Or “the distance between these two points is exactly one yard”, or “the temperature is precisely 75 degrees Fahrenheit”. These kinds of propositions have nothing to do with “opinion”. On the other hand, a proposition like: “Beethoven’s music is beautiful”, or “this piece of Limburger cheese stinks”, or “the Holocaust was an immoral event”, or “the temperature of 75 degrees Fahrenheit is too hot”… these kinds of propositions are subjective. Or the proposition: “tomorrow there will be rain”. They cannot have a truth value associated with them.

In other words, your moral position is that Nazi actions in the second world war should NOT be absolutely condemned as morally wrong. They were merely unacceptable to us, morally speaking.

How is that NOT an “absolute" moral position?

It is not a moral proposition, only a simple statement of fact. In our eyes it was an atrocity on a huge scale. But if God would commit or order such and action, then it would be virtuous to comply and sinful to resist.

An “absolute” proposition would include God, too. As soon as you exclude God, it will become a “relative” proposition. Elementary, my dear Watson.

 

[Bradski]

In other words, we should take it on your authority that Wallace’s arguments – because they are “rehashed” – don’t work. I see. No attempt to actually address the arguments, merely assume that they “don’t work” because you declare that they don’t.

I didn’t say that his arguments didn’t work because they were rehashed. I was pointing out that, despite the book being a good read, there is no new evidence produced. Does Wallace add any weight to any of the arguments? No. Does he bring anything new to the table? No. Are his arguments sound? No. But does he cover all the usual evidence in an entertaining way? Yes. So if Sol or anyone else is looking for a good read, then they might consider forking out a few dollars. If they are looking for anything new, then save your money.

Care to make any actual observations addressing that point – showing where or why Wallace improperly uses evidence?

Did someone say that he improperly used evidence? Hang, I’ll check…

 

[Bradski]

Nope. Can’t find anything that anyone said in that regard. Where do you think you might have read it…?

Now, for you to merely claim that you have read the book and find nothing but the “same 'ol same 'ol” tells us nothing. In fact, there isn’t even evidence in your post that you did, in fact, read the book nor do you make any case that the “rehashed” arguments don’t work, you simply declare that they don’t by assertion.

Careful, Peter. Some people less well-disposed than I might consider that you were calling me a liar.

So the truth of things is merely that which the majority determines? That is your “argument?” I am sure there is a fallacy there, somewhere, no?

Did I say that? I’m sure I didn’t. Hang on. I’ve got to go and check again!