"The White House said in a statement that State of the Union guests like Barra who "have been invited to sit with the First Lady represent the stories of millions of Americans across the country, who are working hard to better their communities, improve their own economic outcomes and help restore opportunity for all."It's as if The Left lives on a different planet.
Trouble is, Barra is not even getting 77%, but less than half, 48%, of the pay of GM's outgoing male CEO who had no prior experience running a car company. Barra replaced former Carlyle Group executive Dan Akerson, who ran the automaker after it got a massive $49.5 billion taxpayer bailout. The U.S. Treasury finally sold its remaining stake in GM last December, but at a $10.5 billion loss for U.S. taxpayers. At that time, Akerson said GM should not repay taxpayers the $10.5 billion because "the die was cast" when the Treasury Department opted to take shares in GM instead of giving it more loans.
As it stands now, Barra will get $4.4 million in total compensation, including a base salary of $1.6 million, in 2014, according to GM's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Her pay currently trails outgoing CEO Akerson’s higher 2013 compensation by 52%. He got an estimated $9 million, with a larger $1.7 million base salary and $7.3 million in stock awards.
Even in his current role as an outside senior adviser to GM, Akerson's new $4.68 million compensation would still outstrip Barra's pay package."
Tuesday, February 4, 2014
Obama's Auto Company and Women's Pay Deficit
Equal Pay? Not by half.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
76 comments:
It is interesting to compare the Wikipedia entries on these two people.
Daniel Akerson:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Akerson
Akerson had quite a successful career at MCI (CFO 1983-1993), General Instrument (CEO and Chairman 1993-1996), and especially Nextel CEO 1996-1999), before a disastrous stint at Nextlink Communications (CEO 1999-2002), later rebranded as XO Communications; that company went bankrupt. Akerson successfully ran the largest equity fund at the Carlyle Group from 2003-2009. In 2009, he joined the GM board, becoming CEO in 2010 and Chairman in 2011. In Akerson's first year at GM, GM made a record $7.6 billion in profits.
Mary Barra:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Barra
Barra held a variety of engineering and administrative positions at GM beginning in 1980 as a co-op student, including being manager of the Detroit/Hamtramck Assembly plant. In 2008, she became Vice President of Global Manufacturing Engineering. In 2009, she advanced to the position of Vice President of Global Human Resources, which she held until February 2011, when she was named Executive Vice President of Global Product Development. In August 2013, her Vice President responsibility was extended to include Global Purchasing and Supply Chain. She became GM CEO as of 15 JAN 2014.
Both are engineers. Both have a Masters degree (Akerson in economics; Barra in business administration).
The apparently significant difference is in the overall resumes. Given the significant difference in experience and number of years operating as a successful CEO, why would anyone expect the compensation package to be the same or roughly comparable?
This difference in experience is one of the major reasons why the "women only make 77 cents for every dollar men make" shibboleth is such bullshit, leaving aside the use of the statistical mean across all professions and all workers as "representative" of gender differences in compensation.
Companies exist to make a profit for the shareholders. Those rare individuals who demonstrate a track record of successfully increasing the bottom line are compensated accordingly, even if there is an occasional "glitch" such as a bankruptcy on the overall resume.
It has (literally) nothing to do with whether the person selected to run the company has a penis or a vagina.
I suppose the point made is the apparent double standard between the rhetoric and the reality. So what else is new with this administration?!?
Robert,
It looks like you agree with the Left then.
The article the blog author linked to is a failed attempt at blaming the Left for not being fair while simultaneously claiming that we should be fair by paying women as much as men for similar background and position. In this case, as you correctly mentioned, the two candidates don't have the same background, which explains the difference in pay.
This is disinformation from our friends at Faux News. Nothing new!
-- Find out more at:
http://amleft.blogspot.com/
AMLeft said...
"It looks like you agree with the Left then."
O-H M-Y G-O-D! Did I actually do THAT?!? Cut off my typing fingers, QUICK, before it spreads to my brain! ;-)
I'm fairly certain (unless I just traversed the same black hole of irrationality that swallowed Nietzsche and spit him out Anti-Rational [and insane] on the other side) that I'm NOT on the side of the Left (NOR THE RIGHT) when it comes to (mis)using statistical data to score points. I thought that was fairly clear:
"This difference in experience is one of the major reasons why the "women only make 77 cents for every dollar men make" SHIBBOLETH is such BULLSHIT, leaving aside the [mis]use of the statistical mean across all professions and all workers as "representative" of gender differences in compensation."
Not too many I know of on the Right who champion the line that women are drastically underpaid when compared to men.
I have always taken the position that ceteris paribus ALL persons (regardless of gender or any other specially favored group designation) should have equal opportunities and be compensated equally for comparable work. The "rub" (of course) that rarely are all other things roughly equal.
That said, I did take a look at your blog. I didn't find any appropriate information on the current topic (since the link went to the August 04, 2012 post), but I did find this excellent (even if unintended) play on words at the link given:
"This is BREAKING news at 10:22 PM PST. People in Oakland have SMASHED THE WINDOWS of the Obama 2012 campaign office, ..."
Maybe the perpetrators were just a "spontaneous demonstration" in response to a YouTube video trashing Islam...
I don't understand why these CEOs were getting such huge paychecks while their company is losing money, indeed receiving a rather sizeable "taxpayer bailout," without our permission of course. What is the government doing playing monopoly with private businesses anyway? Also, way to go US Treasury for buying up stock and then selling it at a loss to the taxpayers.
Michael:
It certainly seems insane to pay a lot of money to someone who has driven a company into the ground. However, the compensation packages of the CEOs were in place (without caveats regarding poor CEO performance) before "we the people" (through no direct choice of ours) "bailed out" these "too large to fail" companies. (I personally think "too large to fail" is politi-speak for "too important for my re-election chances to risk pissing off the voters who are also the workers".)
Dr. Thomas Sowell (somewhat on this same subject):
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2008/10/01/penny-wise_politics/page/full
In any event, it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth to feel like I have been played for the fool.
Yes, yes and yes. However, my variant take on "too big to fail" would be "too big of a political campaign donor." As well, it would be to the government's benefit to have just a small handful of big corporations working in collusion. This allows them greater control over the economy, a greater portion of the market, jobs sector and culture via copyright/patent expansionism. In this way they can lock up ideas and make it virtually impossible for smaller businesses not to "infringe," resulting in more lawsuits and campaign financing.
In a word, fascism.
"I'm NOT on the side of the Left (NOR THE RIGHT) when it comes to (mis)using statistical data to score points. "
Got it. In this case, you were complaining against what the right-wing 'journalist' at Faux News wrote.
"Maybe the perpetrators were just a "spontaneous demonstration" in response to a YouTube video trashing Islam..."
I wonder how sarcastic you are when stating this comment? Hopefully completely. But I doubt.
-- Find out more at:
http://amleft.blogspot.com/
The use of "Faux" in reference to Fox News is an interesting bit of Leftist cultural self-referencing (i.e. projection). The false news reporting on the Left is totally epidemic, and is without any remorse or pretension otherwise, or slightest attempt at balance.
Witness the hours of attacks on Christie (actually one of their own) for slow traffic v.s. the virtually total ignoring of all of the numerous Obama scandals, and especially their lack of interest in Hillary's role in Benghazi. People, many people, died under Holder and GunWalker: PaleoMedia: barely mentioned it. Now it's not even history, at least not for the Leftist true believers.
The same goes for all the other Obama scandals: IRS persecution? No problem, since it's not our folks being persecuted.
Faux news? Obama hates Fox and Brietbart and Drudge because they actually report his scandals, which now are in the dozens.
Calling Fox news "Faux" is like the pot calling the dishwasher black.
And I don't even watch Fox News; I don't have satellite or cable and don't want it. The web gives all sides, on demand. Why watch any news at all on TV? Just watch the Left continue their attempt to control the web, though.
BTW, I agree totally with the term "fascism" as applied to our current government. The collusion of the governing class with the uberwealthy and powerful business class models the Third Reich.
The huge businesses of the Third Reich even used slave labor brought in from the death camps to keep the cost down. They were used up and disposed of. Witness the business/government push to keep the illegals and make even more of them available for cheap labor.
Even the unions have caught on to this.
AMLeft:
"I wonder how sarcastic you are when stating this comment? Hopefully completely. But I doubt."
I was being as sarcastic as possible (implicitly tying your "news" note observation of a "spontaneous demonstration" as a possible cause of the Oakland broken windows to that other supposedly "spontaneous demonstration" occurring in Benghazi) but you are free to doubt whatever you'd like.
I also don't bother watching the "news" (or anything else on TV) simply because there are much better ways to spend my time, like reading, playing music, etc. I simply got tired of listening to a bunch of elites determining what was important and what was not important, and then spinning it for their own agenda. IMHO, there are other more reliable sources for information available that are not quite as biased as the major "news" networks and print organizations. Regardless, you still have to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Ah well of course, the typical right-wing conspiracy theory-ish mentality. You guys don't care about the evil MSM which is bias towards fact, no sorry the Left, and also don't care about Faux News, but will quote it every time you run into something you agree with. Sorting the wheat from the chaff is certainly a good thing, but keeping only the wheat you like is not rational.
-- Find out more at:
http://amleft.blogspot.com/
AMLeft:
What is irrational is to project "the typical right-wing conspiracy theory-ish mentality" on to someone who has EXPLICITLY stated a disdain for "the major 'news' networks and print organizations" (which, FYI, includes Fox News).
Perhaps you should think a little more about your own statement:
"Sorting the wheat from the chaff is certainly a good thing, but keeping only the wheat you like is not rational."
A great 0th century "Jewish philosopher" is reported to have said:
"You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."
Free from what? Ignorance and falsehood, for starters; separation of wheat from chaff. If the "wheat" represents truth, and the "chaff" represents falsehood, then why not keep ALL of the "wheat"? That certainly seems rational - to me.
If one has gone to the trouble of "separating the wheat from the chaff" (i.e., separating fact from fiction, truth from falsehood), then "liking the wheat" that remains is certainly rational, and keeping what has been found to be true and dumping what has been found to be false is certainly rational.
Your point seems to be that there is a distinction between "wheat" that fits YOUR narrative and "wheat" that does NOT fit for YOUR narrative. "Wheat is wheat"; truth is truth, regardless of the narrative.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the logical Principle of Non-contradiction. If that is so, then a study of this blog's contents should help to familiarize you with it.
No offense taken, and none intended.
Let's juxtapose two statements:
(1) A statement from the original article:
"Trouble is, Barra is not even getting 77%, but less than half, 48%, of the pay of GM's outgoing MALE CEO who had NO PRIOR EXPERIENCE running a car company." (Emphasis added.)
"Male" CEO, "no prior experience running a car company" - this appears to be a deliberate attempt to "poison the well" of discussion in favor of the "women make considerably less than men in comparable positions" shibboleth.
(2) From Wikipedia (posted as the first comment on this topic):
"In Akerson's first year at GM, GM made a record $7.6 BILLION in profits."
I submit THAT statement as prima facie evidence that Akerson brought the requisite experience to the job of "running a car company" AND that he did a great job (at the very least, in his very first year as CEO).
I also submit that Barra has yet to prove her value to GM as CEO. She also has "NO PRIOR EXPERIENCE running a car company." She may surpass Akerson's "record $7.6 BILLION in profits" in her first year as CEO. Or, she may fail to get anywhere close to that record figure. Her performance (at this point) is not germane to the argument regarding "equal pay for equal play." She has not yet been a "player" in a multi-billion dollar "poker game."
Interestingly, the original article is posted on Fox Business. So much for "Faux News" shilling the "vast right-wing conspiracy" theory.
Perhaps the "point" of the blog post is best left to the blog owner to elucidate, if he should feel that need.
I mostly agree with you Robert regarding your general view on facts and truth. But you are confused. Having a disdain for major news network and organization is what I call the "the typical right-wing conspiracy theory-ish mentality". So you confirm my impression. Faux News is the 1 network that stands out so it's relevant to mention it.
'Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the logical Principle of Non-contradiction.'
Being condescending is not very impressive. And this blog does not look like it would help anyone get familiarize with basic logic...
AMLeft:
Ah, so it's only YOUR definition of "the typical right-wing conspiracy theory-ish mentality" that has validity. On what basis do YOU become the sole authority of diagnosing or ascribing that "mentality" to others?
I can certainly see the "rationality" of your position. (Since you seem incapable of understanding sarcasm unless it is explicitly pointed out to you, THAT was sarcasm.)
Continuing to pontificate a subjective opinion in spite of an explicit contradiction is certainly irrational. If there is "confusion" regarding what constitutes a specific "mentality," the confusion is yours, not mine. I'm pretty certain (100% sure) that your projection is incorrect.
Please read again (or most likely, for the first time) what I've written, just on this topic alone. It's humorous to see you consistently refer to "Faux News" and project that I have a specific "mentality" that (apparently) laps up anything regurgitated there as the "gospel truth", yet I have explicitly informed you that I do NOT watch Fox News, nor follow Fox News, nor care about Fox News. I am not the one constantly referring to "Faux News:" YOU are. In spite of that, I do NOT "project" that YOU have a "typical AtheoLeftist irrational Consequentialist mentality" (although it is becoming more difficult to avoid that conclusion, based on your posts and your blog link).
There is a considerable amount of basic tutorial information on logical principles on this blog, NONE of which has been shown to be in error. I am NOT referring (necessarily) to all of the individual blog posts, and definitely NOT to all of the comments associated with the individual blog topics and links. The tutorial information is found in the links to the right of the blog posts, under the title "Compendium of
Rational Principles". It is also source referenced in the link "Reference Material on Logic".
I guess the suggestion to simply READ IT would (again) be condescending (to you). (SARCASM ALERT!)
"Ah, so it's only YOUR definition of "the typical right-wing conspiracy theory-ish mentality" that has validity. On what basis do YOU become the sole authority of diagnosing or ascribing that "mentality" to others?"
It's just an opinion. Based on what you wrote here. No claim for superiority nor infaillible truth.
"I guess the suggestion to simply READ IT would (again) be condescending (to you). (SARCASM ALERT!)"
What a poor use of sarcasm...
What would anyone learn by reading this kind of post here anyway? It's a blog, which is by definition subjective. Nothing to do with objective logic.
AMLeft:
Daniel Patrick Moynihan:
“You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.”
The reference to objective logic and rational principles on this blog has been provided to you as fact, not opinion. That you studiously choose to ignore THAT fact indicates more about you than any lack of objectivity on the part of the blogger.
A blog may have subjective opinions on it, but it also may have objective facts on it. You choose to ignore THAT objective fact. That is your prerogative.
Would you care to go back to the original topic and objectively comment on it, rather than making projections from your subjective space about the other commenters?
"The reference to objective logic and rational principles on this blog has been provided to you as fact, not opinion. That you studiously choose to ignore THAT fact"
I don't get why you would use THAT blog as a source for teaching logic?
"Would you care to go back to the original topic and objectively comment on it, rather than making projections from your subjective space about the other commenters?"
We agree on the original point, gender is irrelevant regarding salary. Other point? Why do you care about comments that mean nothing to you?
Stan, count me in as someone who doesn't watch any mainstream indoct- err, news.
AMLeft, I'm for America, meaning I don't swing along the left-right pendulum as I believe both are controlled by socialist-communists and special interest groups. Anyone who can see through the political illusion knows that the deck is being stacked against the people, that we're being swindled by the (non-)Federal Reserve, Wall Street and the banks, and that the government is militarizing and expanding their domestic army for a reason.
Sometime after we won our independence, the globalists snuck right back in through the back door proxy that is Freemasonry, but also takes on other monikers such as Skull & Bones. Their final aim is to create a one world government which they will reign over. However, one major obstacle yet stands in their way: Christianity, and thus by extension the Constitution. Hence why everything from the HHS mandate to same-sex marriage is designed specifically to politically undermine, attack and restrict its practice and influence. Correct me if I'm mistaken but the Constitution was designed to prevent government overreach, especially with regards to freedom of speech, religion, press and association -- all of which they're subverting.
Michael said:
"one major obstacle yet stands in their way: Christianity, and thus by extension the Constitution"
You're funny!
"the Constitution was designed to prevent government overreach, especially with regards to freedom of speech, religion, press and association"
Agreed but.
"-- all of which they're subverting."
But not with that. We as Americans do enjoy freedom of speech, religion, press and association. I am not worried about calling you a moron, and you can do the same. You can practice your own version of Christianity and nobody cares. Press is so free that Faux News can call themselves 'News'. Association is a given. So where exactly is your freedom infringed by this evil Leftist government?
Let's see. The government is trying to mandate Catholic agencies provide coverage for abortion and contraception, knowing full well that the Church finds these things intrinsically evil. Then there's the matter of unscrupulous activist judges de-certifying Catholic adoption agencies by trying to force an immoral imperative upon them: either adopt to gay couples (thereby violating the tenets of their faith) or we'll shut you down. Then there's the issue of private business owners being taken to court in an attempt to force them to render services specifically for homosexual occasions. Many public schools engage in sexual courses which indoctrinate students, some not yet even in their teens, with homosexual propaganda with the full complicity of the state. Heck, Obama appointed Kevin Jennings, militant homosex activist and founder of GLSEN, as his "safe schools" czar in 2009. Look up "fistgate scandal" in a search engine and see what pops up. Then there's the issue of people voting overwhelmingly in opposition to giving legal recognition to "same-sex marriage," so activist judges (including the SCOTUS) unilaterally took it upon themselves to override the will of the people and institute it anyway. Undemocratic and unconstitutional to the core.
"The government is trying to mandate Catholic agencies provide coverage for abortion and contraception"
Source? Your interpretation of the situation could well be wrong. The general idea usually is that the same regulations should apply to all agencies, regardless of their faith. Freedom of religion does not warrant subjective discrimination because ' the Church finds these things intrinsically evil.'
"de-certifying Catholic adoption agencies by trying to force an immoral imperative"
Same thing. Source? And 'immoral' is subjective. The government tries to follow objective guidelines that thus apply to all.
"private business owners being taken to court in an attempt to force them to render services specifically for homosexual occasions"
Source? Your interpretation of the situation could be wrong here too. The same general principle applies anyway. Freedom of religion does not grant sexual-orientation-discrimination rights. A religious organization that hates black or people with brown eyes would not be granted the right to discriminate against these groups of people because of their rights to religion.
" Many public schools engage in sexual courses"
Nothing to do with your freedom. Objective science provides guidelines as to what to teach children in school. You are still free to teach them whatever you want outside, or home school them. Bad example for the question I asked you.
And you just exposed your non-tolerance of people with a different sexual orientation. A few decades ago, people like you thought that blacks and women were sub-humans who should not vote or hold the same kind of jobs as others.
" people voting overwhelmingly in opposition to SOMETHING so activist judges unilaterally took it upon themselves to override SOMETHING"
Nothing to do with your freedom again. And it's a bad example again. The justice system is not a democracy but it is constitutional. It's actually the people who acted in an unconstitutional matter if they voted for SOMETHING and that SOMETHING is then overturned. It happened before and it will happen again. Rightly so.
Try again Michael. You are still a perfectly free American man as far as I can tell! Nothing even came close to be an example of your personal freedom being violated. Not close.
"Source?"
Um, where have you been, living under a rock?
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/7-states-and-5-catholic-plantiffs-sue-over-hhs-mandate/
http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/06/obama-says-freedom-of-religion-is-under-threat-as-catholics-sue-administration/#!
"Your interpretation of the situation could well be wrong. The general idea usually is that the same regulations should apply to all agencies, regardless of their faith. Freedom of religion does not warrant subjective discrimination because 'the Church finds these things intrinsically evil.'"
Wrong. They added same-sex couples to the list of 'protected class' on equal footing with race, gender and religion, thus setting the groundwork for attacks against the religious (specifically Christianity) through legal means.
"Same thing. Source? And 'immoral' is subjective. The government tries to follow objective guidelines that thus apply to all."
Here are a couple sources:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/illinois-catholic-charities-forced-out-of-adoptions-over-homosexual-rights
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0601456.htm
If morality is subjective (i.e. moral relativism) then from what source do we derive that murder, theft, rape and pedophilia are crimes? Are you an atheist?
"Source?"
What am I, your personal assistant? Go look it up yourself.
"Your interpretation of the situation could be wrong here too. The same general principle applies anyway. Freedom of religion does not grant sexual-orientation-discrimination rights. A religious organization that hates black or people with brown eyes would not be granted the right to discriminate against these groups of people because of their rights to religion."
Red herring argument, equating race with sexual orientation which is a deliberate choice. Christians do not need to explain our opposition to homosexual practices. Indeed, practically every civilization throughout history has regarded homosexuality as unnatural for obvious reasons. Their sexual proclivities are in no way, shape or form adequate basis for supplanting people's First Amendment rights under the false pretense of 'equality.'
"Nothing to do with your freedom. Objective science provides guidelines as to what to teach children in school. You are still free to teach them whatever you want outside, or home school them. Bad example for the question I asked you."
"Objective science," as opposed to what, "unobjective science"? Pure BS. Anal penetration is in no way biologically productive, let alone healthy. It has everything to do with both the children's and their parents' freedoms, especially when they cannot opt-out. In California, activist judges are preventing parents from home-schooling their children (and no, I'm not digging up another news link just because you're too lazy to do so yourself).
"And you just exposed your non-tolerance of people with a different sexual orientation."
What is tolerance if not putting up with something which would otherwise be considered unacceptable.
"A few decades ago, people like you thought that blacks and women were sub-humans who should not vote or hold the same kind of jobs as others."
Practically everybody who's ever lived throughout the history of the world has viewed homosexuality as unnatural and immoral, including most of the world population today. Does your emotionally-rooted false equivalency not also apply to them as well or are you just projecting?
"Nothing to do with your freedom again. And it's a bad example again. The justice system is not a democracy but it is constitutional. It's actually the people who acted in an unconstitutional matter if they voted for SOMETHING and that SOMETHING is then overturned. It happened before and it will happen again. Rightly so."
We're supposed to have a representative democracy, not judicial activists running roughshod over the will of the majority.
"Um, where have you been, living under a rock?"
How mature of you.
"They added same-sex couples to the list of 'protected class' on equal footing with race, gender and religion,"
Yes because apparently some irrational people discriminate against race, gender, religion and... sexual orientation. It's silly that the government needs to specify. Religious people cause that.
"thus setting the groundwork for attacks against the religious (specifically Christianity) through legal means."
If 'preventing discrimination' equals 'attack against the religious' then dam yes we should attack the religious through legal means if needed. You don't get to discriminate because it makes you feel weird to think about 2 consenting adults of the same sex having a relationship. People used to feel weird when a black man walked into their building, hence the inclusion of race that you mentioned.
"If morality is subjective (i.e. moral relativism) then from what source do we derive that murder, theft, rape and pedophilia are crimes?"
Crimes are legal issues. You confuse your words. How shocking.
Regarding morality, I do subscribe to the idea that there is such a thing as objective morality. We derive what's objectively moral or not the exact same way we derive what's objectively true or not. Think about how you figure out what's true, that's how I figure out what's moral.
"Are you an atheist?"
Probably, it depends what you mean. I don't believe we can disprove many of the god concepts people believe in. Just like most self-labeled atheists, I also reject the idea we can prove gods don't exist.
"What am I, your personal assistant? Go look it up yourself."
How mature of you.
"Christians do not need to explain our opposition to homosexual practices"
I am glad to hear that. No wonder you guys lose every single legal battle. You literally concede that you have nothing to support your views. You contradict yourself though since you did try to explain your immoral intolerance of different sexual orientation.
"Anal penetration is in no way biologically productive, let alone healthy."
That's how you sum up homosexuality? With something both homosexual and heterosexual couples practice... Something that does not concern lesbian couples... you do need objective scientific facts to help you understand some things about nature I am afraid.
"In California, activist judges are preventing parents from home-schooling their children"
I agree with you that this is probably wrong. Without the context I cannot judge accurately.
"Practically everybody who's ever lived throughout the history of the world has viewed homosexuality as unnatural and immoral"
Horrible argument. That's all you have I believe. Everybody believed something so we should follow them? Think about slavery or women's right again for a minute...
" We're supposed to have a representative democracy, not judicial activists running roughshod over the will of the majority."
A democracy does not mean that every single legal decision is put to a vote. You got some learning to do.
Michael, I did not point out your most horribly bad fallacy: appeal to nature. It fails on 2 levels.
Number 1. Homosexuality is definitely 'natural'. It is not the norm obviously but it does occur naturally within all animals ever studied including humans for as long as we can think of. There are clear indications that ancient Greeks and Romans were inclined to practice homosexual acts even if they were not necessarily homosexuals themselves. It's as if it was... what's the word... natural for them to perform that kind of sexual act in order to learn. It disgusts me to no end to imagine myself with another man but I don't see why I would consider their mutual attraction immoral. It's not more/less natural than a creepy rich 80-yo with a young vulnerable 20-yo, regardless of gender, for both, btw
Number 2. The appeal to nature fallacy is that even if it were considered completely un-natural to be gay, it does not make it moral or immoral. Being natural has nothing to do with morality. Think of examples such as sharing sexual partners, eating your offspring, inbreeding, killing, raping, and so on. All natural. All occurring in humans too unfortunately. Your problem is that like so many self-righteous religious folks, you have this subjective notion of 'good' things which are just 'natural' and 'bad' things which are 'not natural'. Oh my god, I can't believe they do thissssss, it's so.... gosh... everyone would think like me, I must be right and it's the 'natural' way to be. This is objectively right, it's not a subjective opinion that 'this' is 'bad'. My god must agree with that too because that's his nature, objectively.
Let's see if I've got this. Animals do all sorts of unnatural things by human standards. Dogs dry-humping people's legs, certain female preying mantis' act of cannibalism after copulating, male lions eating their cubs, certain mammals' tendency to sniff each other, groom themselves, etc. Just because animals do something doesn't mean that it's suddenly A-OK for us to do likewise.
Contrary to your infactual blanket statement, Christians don't lose every legal battle.
An exerpt from Atlas Shrugged~
“Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.”
Redefine the institute of marriage to be whatever they want it to be, alter sexual orientation into protected class status with 'special rights' granted and then set legal precedent for attacking religious groups and private business owners who (rightfully) refuse to affirm an unnatural lifestyle. The government doesn't have the authority to determine what the people must affirm, accept and believe through thought crimes.
Christians are not your doormat; don't expect us to roll over and play dead for the sake of the state's godless agenda.
Stan, read this.
http://realnewsaustralia.com/2013/10/22/false-flag-averted/#sthash.it2Wj9Kh.dpuf
AMleft,
You have demonstrated the success of the Leftist media, in spades. These items are all over the web news, with some of these cases going to the USSC. But you won't know that because you hate Fox news for reporting what is actually happening. Your ignorance of the situation is unremarkable because it is so Leftist.
You are a victim of your own ideology, steeped in your own ignorance which is maintained by network Leftist news-withholders.
I am not Catholic. However, the Catholics are fighting against the tyranny which is forcing them to abandon child services and to close community services (alreaddy done) because to keep them open under the current tyrant would force them to violate their consciences. If they lose, then conscientious objection loses (the previous domain of the uber Left, which now has switched to its real essence: fascism). Why do you think that it is "racist" to criticise in any way the tyrant-in-chief? The tyrant who has promised to by-pass congress and create his own laws? The tyrant who refuses to enforce existing laws passed by congress?
It is because racism is illegal, and therefore should criticism becomes effective, the critics can be be charged and silenced.
The bakeries who refused to bake homosexual wedding cakes are being persecuted, legally. They can refuse to bake a cake for me, but not for homosexuals. There are several cases of this in court right now. But you don't know that, do you?
Turn off the TV. They are the Pravda/Isvestia of the Left.
Read something besides Leftist lies. Much of the actual US news is obtained from British sources, because the US MSM censors it.
Then you'll find out what is really happening in this government. And you can confirm it through access to court proceedings if you still can't cough up the Leftist hairball blockage.
Rationally it is called due diligence: actually check for facts, rather than accept the blather.
Michael, read this:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/charleston.asp
AMleft,
”Being natural has nothing to do with morality. Think of examples such as sharing sexual partners, eating your offspring, inbreeding, killing, raping, and so on. All natural. All occurring in humans too unfortunately. Your problem is that like so many self-righteous religious folks, you have this subjective notion of 'good' things which are just 'natural' and 'bad' things which are 'not natural'. Oh my god, I can't believe they do thissssss, it's so.... gosh... everyone would think like me, I must be right and it's the 'natural' way to be. This is objectively right, it's not a subjective opinion that 'this' is 'bad'. My god must agree with that too because that's his nature, objectively.”
This is gibberish. Here’s why. First you implied that being “natural” cancelled out morality. Then you claim that it has nothing to do with morality. You go on to point out that all behaviors occur naturally, in the same manner that Kinsey showed that all behaviors occur along a continuum, a spectrum of “normal” behaviors. Now taking your slur against morality to be your actual position – morality is merely a fantasy of religion – then you again prove your obeisance to AtheoLeftist Voidist nihilism, which means that any… any reference to morals is subject to ridicule. This is because Atheism relieves the Atheist of all morals, allowing him to create his own – or none. Either way, the Atheist has no actual morals, only a temporary and volatile set which he creates in his own image, to satisfy his own needs.
The spectrum of normal behaviors means that there is no behavior which is subject to moral judgment. So that in turn allows pedophilia, cannibalistic homosexuality, etc… UNLESS some sort of arbitrary morality is created – by the Atheist, of course – which restricts these normal behaviors which exist along the spectrum of normal behaviors. This allows the Atheist to assert himself as the (make that THE) moral authority in charge of creating moral absolutes for the rest of humanity. In other words, the Atheist asserts his Godness over the Herd, and becomes the messiah.
As the self-anointed moral authority and messiah, the Atheist becomes dismissive of any and all contrary evidence, and attacks not with fact, but with faux-moral snark (self-righteous assertion of his own personal opinion as Truth).
And that appears to be where you stand.
Robert, thanks for the link but do you honestly think it's sheer coincidence that those military officers in charge of ICBMs were relieved from duty mere days following the reported leak?
Michael:
Yes, I think it's coincidental. I think the scenario envisioned in the movie "Seven Days in May" has a higher probability of occurrence than the scenario envisioned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Days_in_May
IMHO, it is highly unlikely that the required number of military personnel (who would have to be involved in the scheme to carry it out successfully) would comply with a clearly illegal order from POTUS, directly contradicting their sworn oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I served 8 years in USAF, and then spent 22 more years working as a civilian in DoD. I cannot believe a scenario in which the military would be complicit with such an act.
That said, stranger things have happened in this crazy world we live in.
"Being natural has nothing to do with morality."
POOF! Over 2,000 years of natural law and natural morality philosophical theory, expounded by the greatest minds, disappears down the memory hole into the AtheoLeftist Void.
Michael, your comment is so empty is laughable,
"Let's see if I've got this. Animals do all sorts of unnatural things
Just because animals do something doesn't mean that it's suddenly A-OK for us to do likewise."
Exactly. Appeal to nature fallacy. It means NOTHING for something to be natural, or not, when judging its morality. Yet...
"who (rightfully) refuse to affirm an unnatural lifestyle."
You really have nothing to do to support your attack on sexual orientation differences! You only call it ' unnatural lifestyle' and that's it. No reason why it's 'wrong' in your head. No reason why we should let people discriminate. Please tell me if this means that you think ANY discrimination is OK. That would be consistent at least. It would mean that your position is that people can do whatever they want when it comes to dealing with others. If they want to open a store where black people are not allowed, let them do it...
Stan,
"You have demonstrated the success of the Leftist media, in spades."
So you have nothing to say; you just claim that the evil Leftist media is compromising my thought process, but yours of course is flawless and not influenced by the ridiculous blogs you link to?
"This is gibberish. Here’s why. First you implied that being “natural” cancelled out morality."
No it means that 'natural' is irrelevant to morality. Not cancelling out. You completely miss the point. You just don't get it and I don't think I can make you understand.
All you do is complain that you have 'real' morality on your side and that OTHERS are wrong. You just attack with ad hominem and don't support your own subjective ideas on what's right or wrong. You just call things wrong, for no reason. You just attack with labels such as 'self-anointed moral authority and messiah'. You claim I am dismissive but present nothing.
For those who would like a grounded response to the "faux morality" (Consequentialism at its finest?) of subjectivism:
"The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism
by Dr. Edward Feser
Paperback: 312 pages
Publisher: St. Augustines Press; First Edition, New edition, PB edition (December 10, 2010)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 1587314525
ISBN-13: 978-1587314520
http://www.amazon.com/Last-Superstition-Refutation-New-Atheism/dp/1587314525/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1391800499&sr=1-1&keywords=the+last+superstition+feser
Well written, well argued and based on the concept known as "natural law" (the philosophical foundation of natural morality). No "Bible thumping" or references to religious sources of revelation, which should (but predictably WON'T) appeal to the AtheoLeftists.
Dr. Feser, incidentally, is a former atheist who (like this blog's author) decided to investigate the claim of atheism to reason, science, objectivity, etc., and found that claim to be - empty, as well as incoherent.
Stan:
I thank you for the link to Dr. Feser's blog. It's a gold mine.
"For those who would like a grounded response to the "faux morality" (Consequentialism at its finest?) of subjectivism"
What if we don't think subjectivism is a reliable way to judge morality issues?
"Dr. Feser, incidentally, is a former atheist who (like this blog's author) decided to investigate the claim of atheism to reason, science, objectivity, etc., and found that claim to be - empty, as well as incoherent."
Dr. Feser, just like this blog's author, does not understand that atheism makes no claim. Theists like to claim it makes claim to avoid their burden of proof with such claims. Theists also like to point out that SOME atheists claim there is no god, in an attempt to use a gotcha approach: haha, gotcha, you cannot prove god doesn't exist!
"Dr. Feser, just like this blog's author, does not understand that atheism makes no claim.
Exactly. Atheism is a Void. There is nothing whatsoever attached to Atheism, except rejection, which Atheists refuse to back up with reasoning. So they are left with absolutely nothing in the way of principles, including both a common Atheist principled morality, and a common Atheist system of logic and reasoning. That leaves the Atheist the cherished FREEDOM which Atheists claim and love, in the form of freethought (which is thought without logical tethers to ground it), and either personally derived morality, the ever-changing humanism, or precisely no morality to be grounded in. Atheist FREEDOM is actually moral and intellectual anarchy, being held responsible to no authority other than satisfying oneself. The self is the ultimate. Hence the false sense of elitism which comes from the anarchic morality and irrationality which are claimed to be SUPERIOR to grounded morality and rationality.
That is why Atheists can and do claim nothing and everything, all at the same time, yet claim morality and logic for themselves despite their adherence to internal non-coherence.
"Theists like to claim it makes claim to avoid their burden of proof with such claims."
Atheists like to redefine themselves out of their actuality and into a fantasy existence which they think they can make everyone else believe, which is this: the lie that they have no position on the existence of a creating entity for the universe.
This fantasy is actually seen for what it is: a blatant lie. And it reflects on the supposed "honesty" which Atheists claim for themselves. They are seen for what they are: dishonest both morally and intellectually.
"Theists also like to point out that SOME atheists claim there is no god, in an attempt to use a gotcha approach: haha, gotcha, you cannot prove god doesn't exist!"
What I point out is the complete lack of intellectual integrity which infects Atheism and is specifically demonstrated in your last statement, just above.
Where you exist along the Atheist Void doesn't matter; the entire Atheist Void is an intellectual collapse into anti-deductive rationalization. Intellectual malfeasance and moral incontinence go hand in hand. And yet the Atheist tries to convince everyone that he is morally and intellectually superior, either a lie or a delusion.
"What if we don't think subjectivism is a reliable way to judge morality issues?"
Atheists have no choice. They reject objective morality; that leaves subjectivism regardless of its form. All Atheist "morals" are actually personal opinion and nothing more. They cannot ground their "morals" in any objective, brute Truth, having rejected all sources for moral authority outside themselves.
Which is why Atheists have no common morality; each Atheist is at liberty to create his own personal morality which fits his own personal behaviors. That makes him tautologically moral, but only to his moral theory du jour. His moral theory is available for change at a moment's notice since it his own creation.
Because Atheist morals are by their own definition entirely volatile and non-binding, it is not possible for anyone to trust an Atheist. Trust is generated by comparing actions to principles. When there are no real principles, then there is no comparison to be made which can generate trust. That's why Atheists are not trusted any more than pedophiles.
"You just don't get it and I don't think I can make you understand."
I understand perfectly. You slip and slide around when pinned down.
"All you do is complain that you have 'real' morality on your side and that OTHERS are wrong."
That is completely false, and is a lie. I made NO moral claims. What I did was to demonstrate that Atheists cannot have, ever, anything resembling objective morals, that what they project as moral is actually their own subjective, personal opinion which they want everyone else to think is a "morality". It is not.
"You just attack with ad hominem and don't support your own subjective ideas on what's right or wrong."
What I do here is to analyze Atheism and the Atheist trope which Atheists spin in order to cover for their own inability to claim actual morality. That leads inexorably to the Atheist arrogance which infests the elitism and AtheoLeftism which exudes from the Atheist class which claims the possession of rationality and morality, but in fact is in possession of neither.
If you can refute that, then you are at liberty to do so. Calling out Ad Hominem is useless. And false, since the charge is both valid and true.
"You just call things wrong, for no reason."
This is not a refutation. It is little more than a whine.
"You just attack with labels such as 'self-anointed moral authority and messiah'."
Still not a refutation. You'll have to do better.
"You claim I am dismissive but present nothing."
Yes, you are dismissive and you present nothing. If you want to refute the charges made, then go ahead. DO IT.
Amusing:
The blog's author stipulates his own experience as an atheist for 40 years.
IIRC, Dr. Feser stipulated 10 years as his time spent as an atheist.
Yet, "Dr. Feser, just like this blog's author, does not understand that atheism makes no claim."
I find it more than curious that persons who adhered to an atheist worldview for a considerable length of time have NO understanding of what they adhered to for so long. Perhaps it is only atheists who continue to adhere to atheism that "really" understand that atheism makes "no claim."
Regardless of the variety of atheism (broad vs. narrow, implicit vs. explicit, positive vs. negative, or any other dichotomy of classification), there IS at least one "claim" made, to wit:
Those who posit "the existence of a creating entity for the universe" are WRONG.
That is solely an atheistic claim and not an agnostic claim.
Each time that an atheist is confronted with reasoned, reasonable and responsible arguments (both physical and metaphysical) in support of the THEIST claim for "the existence of a creating entity for the universe," the atheist retreats to the "no claim" position (or simply evades the arguments altogether using straw men or red herrings or any number of other logical fallacies) without ever directly addressing and rebutting the actual arguments given by theists.
So I guess we come back full circle to the claim that there is no claim made, without ever getting a reasoned, reasonable and responsible rebuttal of theist claims.
Very curious... especially for a group that claims to be rational, logical, moral, reasoned, objective, scientific... Oh sorry, I keep forgetting that atheists make "no claim."
I'm sorry: I must have missed something there...
AMLeft, common sense please. Unnatural means just that: not natural, something out of the ordinary. The vast majority of people do not engage in homosexual activity; therefore, homosex is unnatural.
As for morality, well, we're all born with the knowledge of right and wrong. While you'll no doubt continue to feign ignorance here, I'm not the one who's going to judge your eternal soul.
There's really no point in wasting my time arguing when it's clear that you're not going to listen.
Robert, I wouldn't put it past those in power to pull off something as heinous as a false flag in order to suspend (remove) the Constitution and institute martial law.
I've read Edward Feser's blog. Engaging stuff, though some of it flies right over my head.
Stan,
"Exactly. Atheism is a Void. There is nothing whatsoever attached to Atheism, except rejection"
So your entire blog is dedicated to nothing, a void? Except rejection... but rejection of what? The god you believe in or the god atheists used to believe in, whatever that god was for them?
"The self is the ultimate. Hence the false sense of elitism"
And how does this NOT apply to YOU? You have a blog where you pretend to analyze a void you understand. You are the elite writing to enlighten the non-elite who does not have the mental capability of writing such blog, no?
"And yet the Atheist tries to convince everyone that he is morally and intellectually superior, either a lie or a delusion."
But you are the one with the blog. You are the one who thinks he has some 'Analysis' of 'Atheism' to present. How can you not be the one trying to convince?
"Atheists have no choice. They reject objective morality;"
Certainly not. I wrote above that I reject subjectivity. I believe that any decision, when faced with a moral dilemma, can either be moral or not. We all try to find what the most moral choice would be. That's OBJETIVITY, not SUBJECTIVITY.
"I understand perfectly. You slip and slide around when pinned down."
I look forward to see you slip on the above topic. You clearly do NOT understand what objective morality is.
Michael,
"AMLeft, common sense please. Unnatural means just that: not natural, something out of the ordinary. The vast majority of people do not engage in homosexual activity; therefore, homosex is unnatural."
Use your own common sense. Does something unnatural thus become immoral? Illegal? Something you don't like?
I.E. another completely empty response.
You have nothing to justify your bigotry; you just FEEL like homosexualit is wrong because it's weird to you, something you don't quite get and think should not exist. Hence, you label it as unnatural and thus immoral and wish it were illegal. That's how irrational you are. No explanation, just 'common sense' according to what YOUR 'common sense' says.
Think about more examples:
- Not liking chocolate is 'weird' right? Most people do like chocolate. Is it immoral to avoid chocolate? Illegal?
- Cheating on your spouse is 'weird' right? Yet a lot of people do it and it will never become something illegal. But we agree it's immoral, right? Though is it really unnatural?
- Being left handed is 'weird' right? Most people are right-handed. Is it immoral? Should it be illegal?
- Pedophilia is 'weird' right? Yet it always existed unfortunately and does not seem to go away. So is 'natural'? Should it remain immoral and illegal? I think so it's horrible... do you?
- Sado-masochism is weird right? Some people like pain, others like to inflict pain, or both. That's not 'natural' isn't it? Is it immoral if the parties all consent? It's certainly not illegal right now...
- Etc etc etc... the list is incredibly long. There are so many examples of things you and I would label as 'unnatural' using your lose illogical 'common sense' definition. That's the problem.
Tu quoque, my tu quoque, how I love you!
Has anybody seen Aristotle's four causes running loose around here? I was sure there was one of them that is foundational to natural law... It might even apply to homosexuality, same-sex marriage, and a host of other moral issues.
Material cause? No... it doesn't matter what matter it is composed of.
Formal cause? No... it doesn't matter what form it takes.
Essential cause? Maybe, getting warmer... what is the essence of a being?
Final cause? YES! That's it! What is the natural "end" or "purpose" of a being? What is the natural "end" or "purpose" of an activity?
SPOILER ALERT!
You can find all of this discussed in Dr. Feser's book "The Last Superstition."
An "appeal to authority:" No, I'm just not going to regurgitate Dr. Feser's chapter-length arguments in a comment box. I'm too lazy, and it would be pointless for those who reject Aristotelian logic; it would only provoke another round of tu quoque responses.
Greeks bearing gifts... fortunately, not HIV AIDS, nor any other sexually transmitted diseases, and certainly not tu quoque logical fallacies.
Round and round it goes; where it stops, no one knows.
@AMLEft
"Use your own common sense. Does something unnatural thus become immoral? Illegal? Something you don't like?"
Yes, myself and the overhwelming majority of people everywhere reject homosexuality because we believe it to be immoral, revolting, unnatural, etc.
If the government, media and gay activist groups think that we're going to kow-tow before their altar of 'new normal,' they're sorely mistaken. Writing unjust laws to punish religious groups and private business owners for not willfully violating their conscious only serves to create further resentment and division.
"You have nothing to justify your bigotry; you just FEEL like homosexualit is wrong because it's weird to you, something you don't quite get and think should not exist. Hence, you label it as unnatural and thus immoral and wish it were illegal. That's how irrational you are. No explanation, just 'common sense' according to what YOUR 'common sense' says."
Anyone who doesn't affirm homosexuality is a hater, a bigot, a homophobe. Anyone who doesn't agree with the progressive socialists is ostracized, labeled, slandered. Same old dance and song coming from the party of tolerance. *YAWN*
Now then, since you reject God and claim to possess objectivity, care to explain what is "normal" about a man sticking his genitals up another man's rectal cavity? What are you going to say, that it's all about the "love" of two consenting adults? Well who made that rule? Why not stretch the definition to be "all-inclusive"? A man and a boy, a girl and a dog, two sisters and their cousin, etc. Who are you to say otherwise? Suddenly, traditions are turned on their head, institutes (read: marriage) perverted to mean something they never were meant to and words are redefined to fit all things and therefore devoid of meaning. With moral relativism, anything goes -- chaos is injected into society. Nothing has meaning.
"Think about more examples:
- Not liking chocolate is 'weird' right? Most people do like chocolate. Is it immoral to avoid chocolate? Illegal?
- Cheating on your spouse is 'weird' right? Yet a lot of people do it and it will never become something illegal. But we agree it's immoral, right? Though is it really unnatural?
- Being left handed is 'weird' right? Most people are right-handed. Is it immoral? Should it be illegal?
- Pedophilia is 'weird' right? Yet it always existed unfortunately and does not seem to go away. So is 'natural'? Should it remain immoral and illegal? I think so it's horrible... do you?
- Sado-masochism is weird right? Some people like pain, others like to inflict pain, or both. That's not 'natural' isn't it? Is it immoral if the parties all consent? It's certainly not illegal right now...
- Etc etc etc... the list is incredibly long. There are so many examples of things you and I would label as 'unnatural' using your lose illogical 'common sense' definition. That's the problem."
Seems to me you're attempting to dodge and weave. Neither 'not liking chocolate' or 'left-handed writing' present society with a moral imperative; homsexuality does, especially when it's forced upon us against our will.
When unscrupulous judicial activists attempt to force religious groups and private businesses to affirm and cater to a sexual proclivity, that makes homosexuality our business against our will. In actuality, we don't want anything to do with it at all. The party that screams tolerance certainly doesn't tolerate opposing views.
AMLeft,
” So your entire blog is dedicated to nothing, a void? Except rejection... but rejection of what? The god you believe in or the god atheists used to believe in, whatever that god was for them?”
Atheists reject all authority which would damage their “free thought”. You are a perfect example. This blog points out the rational failures of individuals who have rejected authority and placed themselves at the supposed pinnacle of existence, supposed pinnacle of rationality, supposed pinnacle of morality. Their actual logic is chaotic, a search for support for their own elitism.
” And how does this NOT apply to YOU? You have a blog where you pretend to analyze a void you understand. You are the elite writing to enlighten the non-elite who does not have the mental capability of writing such blog, no?”
Extremely poor response, I must say. First it is not related to the charge being made, it is a cheap Tu Quoque, which is false because I humble myself before the findings of disciplined rational processes, whereas Atheists indulge in cheap fallacious rhetoric (such as Tu Qouques) , and eschew rationality in favor of rationalization for their preferred outcome. When you care to address the actual charge being made, then we have something to discuss; fallacies, not so much other than to point them out.
” "And yet the Atheist tries to convince everyone that he is morally and intellectually superior, either a lie or a delusion."
But you are the one with the blog. You are the one who thinks he has some 'Analysis' of 'Atheism' to present. How can you not be the one trying to convince?
I make no claims of superiority; Atheists are the ones doing that. Your complaint is without substance.
” "Atheists have no choice. They reject objective morality;"
Certainly not. I wrote above that I reject subjectivity. I believe that any decision, when faced with a moral dilemma, can either be moral or not. We all try to find what the most moral choice would be. That's OBJETIVITY, not SUBJECTIVITY.”
You demonstrate here that you do not understand the term “objective”. In fact, you describe perfectly the subjective process of defining morality. Objective means that it exists incorrigibly and without need to be explained; it is self-evident. There would be no need to “find” the “most moral” choice.
I suggest that you read up on the Atheist rejection of Objective morality. You have made up a concept which is not coherent.
A correction,before proceeding: I mistakenly gave "Essential cause" as one of Aristotle's four causes; that is incorrect.
Material cause: the underlying stuff that a thing is made of. MATTER.
Formal cause: the form, structure, or pattern that the matter exhibits. FORM.
Efficient cause: what brings a thing into existence, or which actualizes the potentiality in a thing.
Final cause: the end, goal or purpose of a thing.
Given the four causes, especially the "final cause," one can adduce what is "natural" or "unnatural". This provides the moral basis of natural law. The "good" (moral good) for a being is to act in accordance with its final cause. Violations of that final cause in behavior are NOT "good" and thus are immoral.
A quick definition of terms and the source of the definition (which you may question as to objectivity or subjectivity, but it’s at least a common starting point).
Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met and are "mind-independent"—that is, existing freely or independently from a mind (from the thoughts, feelings, ideas, etc. of a sentient subject).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_%28philosophy%29
Subjectivity is a term used to refer to the condition of being a subject: i.e., the quality of possessing perspectives, experiences, feelings, beliefs, desires, and/or power. Subjectivity is used as an explanation for what influences and informs people's judgments about truth or reality. It is the collection of the perceptions, experiences, expectations, personal or cultural understanding, and beliefs specific to a person. It is often used in contrast to the term objectivity, which is described as a view of truth or reality which is free of any individual's influence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity
Interestingly, both Stan and AMLeft reject subjectivity (at least according to their own statements presented above).
What are the grounds for the claim to objectivity, rather than subjectivity?
In order to be objective, the ground for truth values must first exist and also exist independently of the subjective (internal) opinion of any one or more persons.
If the ground is based on certain first principles which are necessary for the functioning of any proof and therefore which cannot be proved without those same first principles being used, the the ground is rational and objective.
If the ground is not based on first principles and/or is based on the opinion of a subject, then the ground is not rational and is subjective.
Either objective moral values exist, independently of any subject, or they do not. "True for you but not true for me" is irrational in the extreme, based on the First Principle of Non-contradiction. The falsity of that statement is easily demonstrated: Is that statement itself only subjectively true or is it objectively true? One is led inevitably into a contradiction, illustrating the falsity of the proposition.
The question before us is rather simple:
Do objective morals exist or not?
If the answer is in the affirmative, then those objective morals become the reference grounds for decision making. Each person cannot then independently make his own subjective decision as to the morality or immorality involved; be is constrained by the objective moral values.
On the other hand, if the answer is in the negative, then subjectivity is all that is left. All assertions of rejecting subjectivity become contradictory and thus incoherent.
Either you is or you ain't, via the First Principle of the Excluded Middle.
Stan,
"You demonstrate here that you do not understand the term “objective”. In fact, you describe perfectly the subjective process of defining morality. Objective means that it exists incorrigibly and without need to be explained; it is self-evident. There would be no need to “find” the “most moral” choice."
Stan, isn't there such a thing as 'finding truth'? Of course yes.
QED.
You are the one who does not understand the term 'objective'. Let me be elitist, unlike you, and dumb down the topic for you:
Let's pretend we are standing in front of the Empire State Building. We are both looking at it and I claim:
- That building is at least 1,000 feet tall.
To which you reply:
- I think that building is at least 1,200 feet tall.
Would that mean that we disagree that there is an objective 'truth' abut the height of that building?
Where is the truth about the building which is, according to you: incorrigibly and without need to be explained; it is self-evident?
The answer is that there is such truth in this case but we need to go FIND OUT.
The difference with MORALITY is that it's much tougher to get the truth, since there is no HOLY BOOK (pun intended) to tell us what the truth is about a morality question. It does not mean that there is TRUTH. I sincerely believe there is; we then need to try to figure out what it is.
For any moral decision we make, there is a best case scenario. HOW do you find what it is??
Interesting:
"People like you have to be FORCED" to be "moral" - on MY terms. No freedom of association, no freedom of conscience, just FORCE to be applied to those who disagree (for whatever reason) with the politically correct "wisdom" of the ruling Elites.
The projection is made that the Other wants to FORCE the favored Victim group to do - whatever it is that the Elites have determined is a "right" of the Victim group. This use of FORCE is deemed to be immoral when used by the Other. And yet, application of FORCE is deemed to be moral whenever the Elites choose to use it against the Other.
Does anyone besides me see the arbitrariness and totally contradictory illogic of holding this position?!?
AMLeft:
Repeating the question:
Do objective morals exist or not?
If the answer is "YES":
What is the ground of your objective morals?
If the answer is "NO":
How are your subjective morals to be considered (by you) objective?
Robert,
"People like you have to be FORCED" to be "moral" - on MY terms. No freedom of association, no freedom of conscience, just FORCE to be applied to those who disagree (for whatever reason) with the politically correct "wisdom" of the ruling Elites."
YEP. Don't you want to FORCE criminals to be in jail for what they did? I want to FORCE people to stop discriminating against others because of their sexual orientation. Just like we FORCED people to stop treating blacks like slaves. Just like we FORCED people to accept that women have equal rights.
"Does anyone besides me see the arbitrariness and totally contradictory illogic of holding this position?!"
PLEASE, don't tell me you don't want to FORCE anything on anyone? That would be the height of hypocrisy!!
"Do objective morals exist or not?"
YES
"What is the ground of your objective morals?"
If they are objective they are not 'MINE'. You are CONTRADICTING yourself my friend.
The grounding of OBJECTIVE MORALITY is the same as OBJECTIVE TRUTH: OBJECTIVE REALITY. REALITY is this thing we ALL have to consider to be OBJECTIVE. It's what's NOT dependant on mine, yours, or anyone else's mind. It's there, whether we like it or not. It's the way it is whether we believe it or not.
In this REALITY, we can learn about TRUTH and how humans make decision. When these humans make decision, we can determine if it was a morally correct choice, or not. There is no general rule to start with; no HOLY BOOK to enforce anything. There are only objective morals such as 'life is generally better than death', 'happiness is generally better than sadness' and so on... we all use these OBJECTIVE morals to make decision. Some of us just like to pretend that they have the 'good' ones on their side without justification. Hint: that's what religions teach.
AMLeft,
This is the crux of your anti-morality argument:
”- Man a boy means 'adult and child'. Not the same as 2 consenting adults.
- Girl and a dog means 'humand and animal. Not the same as 2 consenting adults. And by the way... REALLY!? You compare 2 gay people with ANIMALS!!”
First, you are the one who compared homosexuality to animal behavior, thereby attempting to justify it as AOK. Yes, indeed. Slip-slide away, and in CAPS, as if that makes your new position more believable than your earlier position. Your internal contradictions are noted. Might need to create a log to keep track of them.
Second, you now try to separate out behaviors in order to place your very own moral judgment on them. This is non-coherent behavior, and since it is moralistic, it is hypocrisy. Yet another internal contradiction.
”Who are YOU to say otherwise? These things don't concern you, don't affect you personally, have absolutely 0 impact on your little bubble world you live in. YOU are the one who wishes some people had less liberty, less freedom. You are ANTI-AMERICAN to the core.”
Pedophilia doesn’t affect you. Who are you to say otherwise? Murdering each other in Detroit doesn’t affect you. Who are you to pass judgment? Your appeal to liberty is actually an appeal total anarchic chaos, available only to you and your groups of Victims.
What you propose is chaotic anarchy but only up to the point that you, under your own personal moral authority, declare that it must stop. In other words, total freedom for yourself, but not for girls who like dogs. Freedom just for you. Only you. That is bigotry. But more to the point it is discriminatory as defined by yourself: you have the moral authority to declare what is moral and what is not, as it is convenient to yourself. Objective morality does not work that way. Hence your moral position is highly prejudicial, based on your own prejudices.
It is irrational to argue against moral boundaries on the principle that they prevent freedom, liberty and are “ANTI-AMERICAN to the core”, (as if only your opinions qualify as American), and then turn around and deny that same sexual freedom and liberty to practices which you personally deem immoral (for whatever prejudiced reasoning you might harbor against them). You want to claim that there is no line to be drawn, then you draw a line. This is yet another internal contradiction. One after another, these internal contradictions of yours.
”Expect I reject relativism. You just don't know what it means.”
This is beyond even parody. You want to deny exactly what you espouse. The entire concept is non-coherent and self-falsifying.
”Homosexuality is NOT forced on anyone. It's absurd to claim otherwise. YOU are the one who wants to force OTHERS to live in illegality just because you think that this ONE unnatural thing should be stopped. It's backward, ignorance and bigotry.”
Your belief in chaos is duly noted; your charges are duly noted and are rejected.
”YES that's a good thing. People like you have to be FORCED, legally, to NOT discriminate for horrible reasons such as sexual orientation. You can dodge all day long, but no so long ago people like you were FORCED to serve black people. People like you were FORCED to allow women to vote. People like you were FORCED to not be bigots.”
Then why aren’t universities, government agencies, congressional aides, newspapers, TV networks all forced to hire conservatives? Why are conservatives discriminated against? The Leftists are the bigots in question, like yourself.
The discrimination in the South was by Democrats, BTW; the Republicans freed the slaves, fought Jim Crow, and passed civil rights legislation - all of which Democrats fought tooth and nail. Now Democrats are keeping blacks on the Democrat plantations with just enough subsidy to keep them from leaving. If you want to talk about racial bigotry, we can certainly do so.
”Stan, isn't there such a thing as 'finding truth'? Of course yes.
QED.
Don’t use Q.E.D. if you don’t know what it means and can’t provide an argument which satisfies it. Your proposal was not to “find truth”; your proposal was to generate a common agreement amongst subjective opinions. Apparently you don’t know the difference. And, you did not address the argument given to you, you merely slip-slid around with the silly pretension of a rebuttal, one which did not even fit. Let’s try to clear it up: if truth exists, it exists without any need for humans to find it; if it exists, it exists as a brute fact of the universe or even more generally, a brute fact of all possible universes. As such a brute fact, its contrary is immediately seen to be absurd and impossible. Thus it is so obvious that it doesn’t need to be “found”.
Go ahead and refute that, but leave off the flippant non-answers.
Your Empire State Building analogy fails right from the start, both logically and physically, as well as morally. First, the logic: ontologically the only question is whether the building exists. This is philosophically the same issue as the common “table” conundrum: does this table exist? Or is it merely a grouping of atoms? Or further, is it merely a collection of subatomic particles? Does it exist only because it is being observed, and thus the probability equation has collapsed? Only in the macro world does it constitute a “table”; thus it is not logically a brute fact, nor is it a universal truth.
Now the physics: The empire state building does not have a consistent height; its height changes with time, temperature, subsidence, continuing materials compression over time, and under wind pressure it sways with one side higher than the other. So there is no consistent “truth” to be “found”.
And the morality: the empire state building has no correlate in moral theory; it is purely physical (an “is) and in no manner resembles a moral statement ( a “should”). So the entire analogy fails immediately due to False Association.
”just arrogant snark”
Ignored.
”For any moral decision we make, there is a best case scenario. HOW do you find what it is??”
Go ahead. Tell us how you, personally, find what it is?
But understand: that you personally “find what it is” makes it subjective, whether you admit it or not. You cannot bring out a physical lump of morality and claim that to be an objective moral premise. Morality does not exist in physical lumps, waiting for you to find them and subject them to experimental testing and retesting for objectivity. So, what you claim is not an objective “finding”, it is a group subjective agreement. But…
Go ahead. Tell us how you, personally, find what it is?
AMLeft,
I just read your further comment:
"There are only objective morals such as 'life is generally better than death', 'happiness is generally better than sadness' and so on... we all use these OBJECTIVE morals to make decision. Some of us just like to pretend that they have the 'good' ones on their side without justification. Hint: that's what religions teach."
"Generally"? That's an objective principle? Really? That is purely a wiggle statement, a squirrelly non-position with no definite boundaries. Good grief.
No, the Left doesn't believe that at all: They are pro-death of certain categories of humans, innocent humans at normal stages of human development.
Well, let's try this, since your definitions are at best slippery: you have made declarations which you call "objective". Only empiricism provides objective factoids. So: provide us with objective, experimental, replicable, data-driven evidence to support the statement that your beliefs, as stated, are objective truths (containing no falseness, and never contradictable). If you cannot provide objective evidence, then your beliefs cannot be objective..
"who compared homosexuality to animal behavior"
Comparing human-human with animal-animal is very different from comparing that to human-animal.
With caps perhaps?
A human FUCKING AN ANIMAL is not the same as a human FUCKING A HUMAN.
The comparison with animals is to show 1 point: homosexuality is 'natural' in the animal world.
"Pedophilia doesn’t affect you. Who are you to say otherwise? "
It affects a child.
With caps?
FUCKING A CHILD is wrong because the child cannot give consent and its detrimental to the child's future.
"What you propose is chaotic anarchy"
Because it does not fit YOUR narrative? I preach for liberty, responsibility, equal rights, etc...
"Then why aren’t universities, government agencies, congressional aides, newspapers, TV networks all forced to hire conservatives? Why are conservatives discriminated against?"
If you can show that someone lost a job because of their political leaning, I agree with you, it was wrong.
WHAT'S YOUR POINT!?
"Your proposal was not to “find truth”; your proposal was to generate a common agreement amongst subjective opinions. Apparently you don’t know the difference."
Apparently you still don't get it.
We all have our opinion on what's true or not. We then need to 'find truth' to determine who was right.
You are so lost... That's why you wrote this absurdity:
"Go ahead. Tell us how you, personally, find what it is?
But understand: that you personally “find what it is” makes it subjective, whether you admit it or not. "
I wrote about it already. You did not. You have nothing to offer. No wonder you write a blog about something you consider a VOID. You like to write about nothing; keep writing about nothing.
"You cannot bring out a physical lump of morality and claim that to be an objective moral premise. Morality does not exist in physical lumps, waiting for you to find them and subject them to experimental testing and retesting for objectivity."
Statements are not lump of matter, yet we discuss statements and can objectively determine if they are true or not because of what they refer to, IN REALITY. Same thing with moral statement. I can tell you that I find it immoral to have sex with a child because, IN REALITY, there are bad consequences to the child, the child cannot give consent (another topic: when can a human give consent?) and so on... IS IT THAT HARD??? Apparently it is for you Stan. You dodge, you complain, you whine... never addressing the issue. Never giving your BASE for morality. Just accuse, complain, say we are all irrational and elitist yet you are... I don't know, what does that make you?
Ridiculous!
FINALLY, CONCLUSION: I am tired already of arguing with a deaf illogical person. I proved my point. You don't pay attention to details anyway. Click on my name; I updated the link a while back. You never noticed.
"You cannot bring out a physical lump of morality and claim that to be an objective moral premise. Morality does not exist in physical lumps, waiting for you to find them and subject them to experimental testing and retesting for objectivity."
‘Statements are not lump of matter, yet we discuss statements and can objectively determine if they are true or not because of what they refer to, IN REALITY.’
If REALITY doesn't mean physical existence, then what does it mean? Careful, because you are on the brink of claiming a non-physical existence. That's because you are creating a non-physical reference to a physical existence. Non-physical references cannot be objective. So not only do you now claim a non-physical existence for moral determinations, you also eliminate any possibility of an objective existence for morality.
” Same thing with moral statement. I can tell you that I find it immoral to have sex with a child because, IN REALITY, there are bad consequences to the child, the child cannot give consent (another topic: when can a human give consent?) and so on... IS IT THAT HARD???”
There are psychological studies which indicate that sexual experiences of a child with a caring adult are beneficial to the sexual development of the ensuing adult. That refutes your “objective” opinion.
The parent/guardian gives all consent or non-consent for minors. When pedophilia is family oriented, sibling-sibling or parent-child, consent is meaningless. Another refutation of your “objective” opinion.
Feel free to prove this wrong.
” Apparently it is for you Stan. You dodge, you complain, you whine... never addressing the issue. Never giving your BASE for morality. Just accuse, complain, say we are all irrational and elitist yet you are... I don't know, what does that make you?”
To refresh you, this blog is about Atheism and AtheoLeftism, and the analysis of the claims made by those who are under their influence. Your attempt to change the focus from that is not going to succeed in allowing you to avoid the critiques of your positions. We are discussing your claim of the existence of an objective morality which can only be discovered by a group which you would get together specifically to find that morality. In your frustration at not being able to support that claim, you are now resorting to charges against the analyst, without addressing the analysis except to say that it is misunderstood. Perhaps you would like to explain it in better terms, without the accusations which fall outside the realm of logical positions.
My position is that your claims are self-refuting and non-coherent. Those are logic-based criticisms. You should address that. Unless logic is not important to your worldview, of course.
Next you say,
” Ridiculous!
FINALLY, CONCLUSION: I am tired already of arguing with a deaf illogical person. I proved my point. You don't pay attention to details anyway. Click on my name; I updated the link a while back. You never noticed.”
When you provide actual logic which is demonstrably free from internal failures of self-contradiction, then you could have said that you proved your point. But you have done no such thing so far. So under pressure to produce coherent statements regarding the objective nature of morality, you appear to be readying yourself an escape exit. Fine, that’s up to you.
Finally, your updates should be made here, since that is where the discussion remains.
I barely read what you write, it offers no value. I just reply to obviously wrong lines.
I proved my point. You don't pay attention to details anyway. Click on my name; I updated the link a while back. You never noticed.
Will you this time?
Hmm, interesting. Since you don't read what I write, then there is no conversation going on here. That's a poor excuse for not responding to your own logical self-refutation.
Given that, I see no need to read what you write. Nor any reason to continue this thread.
Adios.
You still don't get it, don't you?
The link my username points to is:
http://memebase.cheezburger.com/artoftrolling
Art Of Trolling
Get it now?
It's an "art". It's elaborate. To make sure you get fooled as much as possible, or TROLLED I should say.
AMLeft:
So you are engaged in the "art of trolling." What does that demonstrate, other than that you engage dishonestly in juvenile tricks, simply wasting other people's time?
Given your latest statement, are you are really "proud" of THAT? Hardly moral behavior, but then, that was never a concern for you.
Please either engage seriously in the discussion or go ply your "art" elsewhere. I (for one) have no appreciation for an art solely based on deception.
It's an art like vandalism is an art; the mental distortion that it takes to call it an art is indicative of insanity. With no creative capacities, they wish to engage in destruction. That's what gives them fulfillment. And then they falsely claim destruction to be creative, in order to fill the hole of that which they do not have and cannot get.
It's no accomplishment to fool a trusting person; to think that it is shows a lack of perception. Con men are not intelligent; all they do is finding a trusting person and then lie until they are seen to be too irrational to continue with. They are all cheap thieves and nothing more.
I do wish that blogger had a specific rule-based IP lock-out mechanism, short of membership-only viewing and commenting. This needs to be a public forum, open to everyone on all continents who have respect for open dialog. Yet it needs a person-specific filter to keep out the juveniles and defectives.
Michael,
He's just a troll who types in trash and has now admitted it. He's one of those who throw trash at ball players but can't play ball himself. The trash has no meaning. The only meaning is the disruption which is caused, exactly the mental process of the two year old.
Dr. Feser (in The Last Superstition) lays out the natural law argument against the immorality of homosexuality, same-sex marriage, and abortion.
If you want a reasoned argument that is not based on revelation (i.e., HOLY BOOK), then I suggest Dr. Feser's book as a good starting point.
Yes Stan, I realize that after reading his 'rebuttal,' i.e. admission of trolling.
Robert, I'm sure there's a lot of substance to Dr. Feser's philosophical arguments, but since God created the universe and thus moral law, He is its original Author and therefore Feser and all like-minded philosophers are subject to it. That's not to say that their work lacks value, of course, but wasn't Feser's book written more as a rebuttal to the recent writings/ramblings of influential atheists?
Michael,
Yes Feser is debunking Atheism at a different level from what is done here. Here's a great quote:
(too long, I'll make it a post).
Michael:
Dr. Feser's approach is to expound on why the classical Aristotelian/Thomist/Scholastic approach was (and still is) the best refutation of the New Atheists. He examines the basis for the Thomist position regarding the existence of the Unmoved Mover (Uncreated Creator) and why (metaphysically) this refutes the New Atheists sophomoric attempts at philosophical reasoning. He does NOT dismiss or evade divine revelation, but that is not the thrust of the book.
I took this same approach with my oldest son, who veers back and forth between asserting that he is an atheist and that he is an agnostic. Rather than attempt to convince him by throwing HOLY BOOK snippets at him, I stipulated at the beginning that I would present reasoned logic arguments supporting the existence of a Creator, without recourse to a HOLY BOOK. My argument of choice was the Kalām cosmological argument, as articulated by Dr. William Lane Craig:
Preliminary premises:
Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite
An actual infinite cannot exist.
An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.
Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition
A collection formed by successive addition cannot be an actual infinite.
The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.
Kalām cosmological argument:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
(Link: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/kalam)
Metaphysically, given this conclusion as a new starting point, it is then possible to derive the various attributes of that Cause, which (unremarkably) mirror the attributes associated with the monotheistic God of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Concurrently with establishing a single God, he removes any metaphysical possibility of more than one God.
Since then, I have been reading Dr. Robert J. Spitzer's excellent book New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy. Dr. Spitzer begins with a detailed examination of two modern physics proofs. He then utilizes Aristotle's and Aquinas's metaphysical notion of an Uncaused Cause (referred to in the book as an unconditioned Reality) to derive a metaphysical proof that such a Cause necessarily exists. I have come to prefer it, simply because it makes no assumption about a beginning of the universe; i.e., it is irrelevant to the truth of the argument whether the universe had a beginning or existed infinitely. The point is that a final unconditioned Reality must necessarily exist in order for any conditioned reality to exist in the "here and now". He is extremely careful to make very clear arguments at every stage.
Given the two proofs from contemporary physics, coupled with different three metaphysical proofs, he establishes that it is both reasonable and responsible to believe in the existence of a monotheistic God who sustains everything in existence here and now.
It was enlightening to see scientific as well as metaphysical support for the existence of God, without reference to divine revelation. The proofs remove the grounds of rationality and logic and science from the atheist claim of "There is no God."
Stan, thanks. No matter how many arguments successfully countered against materialism, it simply creates more fodder for the sake, I suspect, of 'keeping the enemy guessing,' or distracted.
Robert, the universe would need to have a beginning in order to arrive at a specific point in time, the here and now. Everything slowly wears down over time; entropy is constant, energy is expended, resources are exhausted and depleted. The universe is finite in existence and in scope -- it has preconfigured limitations.
Robert,
I have Spitzer's book but have not yet read it. I'm embroiled in putting together my position on evolution, which has been a long time coming.
How did the discussion with your son turn out? How old is he? I think you told me once, but I have forgotten.
Stan:
My son is now 46. The discussion ended (rather abruptly) because he stated that he was too busy at work to respond. The subject has not been broached by either of us since then. My wife is on Facebook (I am not, for obvious reasons), and he posts regurgitated snarky atheist "gotchas" from time to time. I guess there's sufficient time for THAT, but not sufficient time to actually investigate and think through arguments which counter his atheism.
Thanks for asking!
Robert,
Thanks for responding.
I'm sure my parents were frustrated with me. I didn't think it through until we retired (at 54) and had the time and motivation to reconsider. It did take me a lot of time, and the motivation could not have come from my family. However, I think my family's instillation of the values which include truth did constitute a subconscious motivation to think through from the start. But everyone is different, of course.
Best wishes!
Michael:
I'm familiar with the entropy argument (predicated on the Second Law of Thermodynamics). Effectively, if the universe has existed for infinity, all useable energy will have already been expended and entropy would have increased to the maximum, with the net result that there would be no life-sustaining processes, but merely a cold, dead (lifeless) universe and we would not exist here and now to be contemplating the issue. However, it is obvious (at least to theists ;-) ) that such is NOT the case, and therefore that the universe began to exist.
That leads right back to the Kalām cosmological argument (given above). That in turn leads naturally to the question: what is the necessary essence or nature of the Cause of the universe?
My point is NOT that there is such an argument (airtight though it appears to be, IMHO). It is that there is empirical SCIENTIFIC corroboration of the very first sentence in a certain HOLY BOOK:
Genesis 1:1: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
If that HOLY BOOK is correct, then it would be illogical to suppose that the universe would NOT provide a rational and natural means of corroborating that fact.
The problem (for theists) is that often those who are among the most faithful of believers are ignorant of the rational, scientifically based arguments supporting the theist position. (That would include ME!) They then concede the position of being rational, logical, scientific, etc. to non-theists, and try to appeal to authority (HOLY BOOK) or to mysticism and divine revelation. Since there are no common grounds between the two groups, this is an exercise in futility. I am firmly convinced that coercion and force will never cause anyone to have a change of mind (or heart).
My own approach (similar in nature to Stand's approach but not nearly as sophisticated) is to challenge atheism on its own supposedly "sacred" grounds, i.e., science, logic, rationality, and especially materialism (in its many forms) without conceding any ground anywhere.
If atheism is true then God does not exist.
God does exist, demonstrably and necessarily so.
Therefore, atheism is false.
Correction: I don't know how the "d" got appended to Stan's name (ref.: "Stand's approach" above); probably a "fat finger" since the "d' follows the "s" on the QWERTY keyboard. Sorry about that.
Thanks for elaborating. Note that the first sentence uses the heavens, so wouldn't that imply the universe from our vantage point? After all, the spiritual Heaven exists outside the realm of space and time, despite the fact that it's going to pass away along with earth.
Of course I'm no theologian so pardon my ignorance.
Post a Comment