A logical fallacy is an oxymoron.
Monavis
I was wondering the same thing. Each point of view can cast a different value on any given action.
For instance, one person might consider execution of a murderer a “good” thing. Another might consider it a “bad” thing. Who’s to say which is right? We live with these contradictions all the time. One man’s ceiling is another man’s floor, so to speak.
Why must one be right and the other wrong? The only reason would be that you associate morality with ethics. But if morality is a matter of aesthetics, then one man’s Mona Lisa is another man’s garbage. God Himself does not judge the morality of men. Ethical judgment of morality is a man-made invention, devised by religion politicians for the purpose of maintaining control and authority over other men in order to enrich themselves.
Energy changes form, if that’s what you mean. But if it isn’t a conscious thing, and we have no information to prove that it is, who cares?
Well, most religions DO make morality calls. I find it silly, but there ya go. The fact that your deity doesn’t is rare indeed.
So, there isn’t an absolute core morality?
Why wouldn’t scratching an itch be a moral action, like wanting to organize food aid? My guess is, you would reply that in one case, you’re just responding to a stimulus. But isn’t that the case in both situations? Does the urge to organize food aid emerge out of nowhere or some sort of special cognitive module? Both represent states that need to be reformed, to a state that satisfies.
In the interest of full disclosure, I should tell you that I take this interpretation from the same scriptures that Christians say they read.
“For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son.” — Jesus (John 5:22)
And
“You judge according to the flesh; I judge no one.” — Jesus (John 8:15)
Thus, God has waived judgment, and so has His son. Who are we, then, to judge one another?
Moral decisions do not come from the brain of a man, but from his spirit. For morality, before the body acts the spirit has assessed a value. Scratching an itch might indeed be a moral decision. It is impossible to judge morality based on empirical observation, which is one excellent reason not to engage in moral judgment. Suppose, for example, that you see a man feeding a homeless beggar. You might conclude from what you observe that you are witnessing an act of mercy, when in fact the man is trying to lure the beggar into his car, where he intends to beat and rape the unfortunate one. In truth, both men are gaining their rewards — the murderer the thrill of his murder, and the beggar release from his prison and eternal security in the arms of his God.
What’s your basis for this conclusion?
My premises are drawn from my studies and meditations upon the teachings of Jesus. My conclusions are drawn from those premises by the analytic rules of reason.
I have done the same thing,studied religions,Archeology,History,Science and my life experiences, which made me not believe in the things people call God. We do not know for a fact what Jesus said, or even if he lived as we were taught as children,we take someone elses word for it.It is pretty certain that Moses was not a real person.There is evidence that the Israelites were fighting a war else where when they were supposed to be slaves in Egypt. Just a few months ago they found evidence that slavery was unlikely in Egypt because they found writings where the people came from far and near to work on the pyramids.They have also found the burial places of the Pharoh who was supposed to have drowned in the Red Sea. Most of what was written about Jesus was written long after the fact.
Monavis
There is always evidence for whatever anyone wishes to believe. Otherwise, they would believe something else. Today’s discovery is tomorrow’s debunked misunderstanding. And sometimes, evidence is just bullshit. In the end, a man must follow reason to wherever it leads. Temporal proximity is not always indicative of accuracy. In fact, immediate reporting is often filled with errors of fact and thick with personal bias. Finally, why a man should take your word over the word of his parents is unclear.
How is correct reasoning discovered, and how is the supremacy of reason established?
Reasoning is correct if it is valid; that is, if it follows the rules of its system. But reason is not supreme in all matters, only in analytic matters like these.
Of course, as you might have guessed, what I meant was what constitutes good rules?
In short, consistency. Every analytical system is either consistent and incomplete or complete and inconsistent. Sorry, I’m not so good with the guessing.
Why is consistency a requirement?
Also, consistency may be necessary, but is it sufficient?
Because, as I explained, without consistency a system would be complete. A complete system would not allow for undecidable propositions, such as assertions of aesthetics — i.e., the statement “The Mona Lisa is beautiful” would have a truth value.
For analytics, yes.
Given that this topic has covered eight pages on one of the smartest message boards on the Internet, I think it’s somewhat safe to say that nobody can be 100% sure what Spirituality means. Or in the very least, the definition of what Spirituality is differs from person to person.
It would seem to me that those who do not feel spiritual are comfortable in their understanding of the universe and aren’t apt to get all mushy about it.
Personally, I occasionally feel spiritual (at least my version of it) when I learn something new that blows me away. I felt pretty spiritual while reading certain parts of *The Selfish Gene * by Richard Dawkins, Chaos by Jame Gliek, and a number of other books on various subjects regarding the natural universe around us. I guess it equates to an overwhelming sense of wonder and excitement about the subject I’m trying to learn, which I imagine is similar to a religous person being “filled with the spirit of the Lord” if you will.
But really, who knows?
Actually, non-spiritualists can get pretty mushy too. Our resident physicalist, SentientMeat, is fond of pondering his origins in a spectacularly prosaic manner. Like this, for instance:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5736438&postcount=47