Beanybag wrote:I am genuinely trying to find out what people believe. The point of the response is that some people believe differently. You may think that your belief is the only possible correct one, but is it not possible that somewhere you made an error? Not to say that you did, but simply to recognize the possibility. You say God does not speak in the anthropogenic, some people say he does. You say he's timeless, others disagree. You say they're wrong, they say you're wrong. I am not in a position to know which side is right, so I'd like to hear from both, or more.
It's less possible that I've made an error than those that disagree with me. And if I've made an error, it's the burden of those who disagree to demonstrate the flaw in my logic. I've shouldered the burden of providing an argument for my views. It is now the burden of those who disagree with my conclusions to demonstrate why. "Na-uh!" does not suffice.
In my original post, I asked quite a bit more than you are implying. I did not ask the single question "What is morality" (ontologically), but also asked epistemic questions of morality. I did not change any questions, I simply asked more than one. Please go back to the previous posts if you doubt this.
Perhaps I'm just dense. I don't see the epistemological question (beyond how we know what morality
is) in the OP. I see the following questions:
What is morality
what does it mean to be moral?
What then, ought we or ought not we do?
Why? What is that to me? Or, as PaulS would say.. sez who?
what clues do we have as to what morality actually is and how can we know?
I just didn't see in any of these the question, "How do we know what is right or wrong in any given case?" Perhaps that's what you meant by one of these, but I just didn't see it.
The Catholic Church has been fairly consistent with its approach to divine simplicity, yes. Are all the Christians here Roman Catholics? Is there no dissent? Isn't it, like you said, not easy to discern the philosophy of God? I don't think it's fair to pretend as if you have a monopoly on truth here. You may have a strong position that creates for a strong moral framework, but if, in providing that strong position, it contradicts other people's conclusions they already made about God, they may dissent or withhold judgment. Why take their voice away? I am not trying to attack anyone's position, I just want to learn about other people's beliefs through a conversation.
I'm not Catholic, and most of the board here is not. To the best of my knowledge, only Byblos is (although I think I saw another RC post once or twice . . . I haven't followed that closely). In any case, DS is not limited to the RCC. Muslims and Jews have historically held to it as well, as well as off-shoot monotheistic religions (e.g., the Druze). Of course, you also have Greek philosophy which held to the idea as well.
As far as taking anyone's voice away, I'll answer that when you tell me when you stop beating your wife. Come on, BB, you know better than that. Loaded questions are never appropriate. You know as well as anyone that I've no interest in shutting down dissent. I do have an interest in arguments for truth. If someone has a different view of God or morality or whatever, they have the right to put their view forward. If they do, they have the obligation to both defend their view rationally and to respond to arguments for other views and against their positions. If their arguments fail, they are obligated to either modify their contradictory views or suspend judgment and/or argument until such a time as they can make a proper argument. That's what
all of us have to do, myself included (and it's an approach I do practice myself).
In short, none of us have the right to be irrational, no matter how sincere we think we are. We have the right to be
wrong. But never irrational.
)
