|
Aswad -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/23/2008 5:55:55 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zensee
I probably should not have included that as it might suggest that you are the only one using fallacious arguments or that this is the only case.
No use crying over spilt milk. [:D]
quote:
In my opinion, "Almost every Western ethic can be traced to Judeo-Christianity." is simply an unsupported assertion.
Well, yeah... do you also contend that it is a false assertion?
The genealogy of morality is a complicated subject, of course, and adequately supporting the position would be grounds for a major publishable work in sociology and memetics. I hope you will not consider it a huge shortcoming that I do not invest that level of effort in making the point that secular moral absolutism reduces to beliefs that are no different from religious belief ("my mama said" vs "my priest said", pretty much).
As far as I know, genealogy as a concept in sociology has been applied by Focault (and incorrectly) and Nietzsche (arguably more correctly; notably, both "On the Genealogy of Morals" and "The Anti-Christ" rely on tracing these things back to those roots, and more specifically to the influence of Saul, who has arguably been a significant factor in mainstream theology as well). You can of course attempt to examine specific cases, which might be interesting. Norway, for instance, has a secular humanist consensus morality that arose after the introduction of the Pale Christ, as he was known, back in the days of Olaf II in the Viking era. Secular humanism is rather at odds with the Viking ethics. You might say that the Christian meme infected the mindsphere and displaced the native flora, and that this opens the door to humanism, which confers greater immunity to nihilism (extinction of these memes) in the face of science.
It hardly constitutes proof, but it does lend a bit of support to the notion that Judeo-Christianity is a memetic ancestor of secular humanism.
quote:
From the list provided I think Error Of Fact: Confusing Correlation And Causation: - might also apply.
Care to explain how?
That is pretty much the one that it seems to me has been perpetrated by the opposing side.
quote:
Also, in rebutting me, you have used switching from the specific to the particular (I say generic secular authority - you say, AHA! Like the abysmal Leagus of Nations!) and back again. That League of Nations tactic in particular is sort of moving the goal posts meets reductio ad absurdum.
That wasn't an attempt to shift the premise of the debate, but more a "doesn't this imply something?"
I'm not trying to prove something, but to examine something.
quote:
Then there's the hydra technique - splitting each rebuttal until the other person is overwhelmed by the task of replying.
Not intentionally. I write quickly. And some of this has required addressing things a bit extensively.
quote:
Semantics is a young mans game.
Perhaps this is playing semantics, but: semantics are another word for "meaning." Meanings may well be a young man's game, but would you say that glossing things over and making sweeping generalizations is an old man's game? I would have to disagree on that, as I do know a fair number of people well past your age who do care about meanings and precision. You've demonstrated as much yourself in some other threads.
quote:
I have fewer years ahead of me than behind me and few to waste on winning arguments just for the trophies. (That was almost an Argument From Age fallacy, BTW)
Again, I'm not looking to win. I'm looking to examine the position. I've recanted a ton of positions over the years.
And I would not have read you as arguing from age, as it'd seem a bit at odds with saying "respect those who follow."
quote:
A nonerligious (secular) forum is the fairest, most equitable place for the most people to meet to discuss their common, trans-religious, concerns. That doesn't mean they can't bring their gods to the table, just keep them off the furniture. Don't invoke the authority of God or tell us what Jesus would do (as an example) just do, it if it is the right thing to do.
Quite agree. If that was your original position, I not only cede, but applaud it.
My reading was more along the lines of "can't bring their gods in the doors in the first place."
I agree that religion doesn't confer authority in such a forum, but it's a valid POV to raise issues from.
So there's no need to start grinning at my keyboard. [;)]
Health,
al-Aswad.
|
|
|
|
