|
>>No, it's not. It's an activism board. We're not here to >>discuss whether or not we should have an ethical compass, >>we're here to discuss how best we might act upon our ethical >>compass. > > >Of what use is a compass unless there is a true, objective >North?
Well, in the earth's magnetic field, there isn't a true, objective north (it only exists up to the magnetostatic dipole approximation, a very good approximation in this case, but far from a "truth"), yet the magnetic compass has been useful nonetheless.
Even so, I'm not arguing against the existence of a "true" moral code, and I don't think I ever have. I've probably argued on occasion that it's dangerous for us to pretend to have a complete certainty about such "truth," but I'm not even doing that here.
>>The God figure of christianity, a being capable of miracles, >>is fundamentally incompatible with any uniformity principle. > > >I don't believe uniformity is violated if there is a deeper >unity beneath the laws. >However, I'm not prepared to speak at any length on this. >C.S. Lewis' volume, "Miralces", is a brilliant examination of >the topic. I've only read it once though, and would not do >the particulars of the argument justice if I attempted to >reconstruct it here.
Well, let's not let the argument be defined by the ramblings of a mediocre fiction writer.
>>>However, in a materialist/naturalist worldview, I wonder >how >>>one explains the existence of univeral, immaterial, >>invarient >>>laws. >> >>We don't! We don't justify our assumption of what I've been >>calling proto-uniformity any more than you justify your >>assumption of a uniformity-violating God. > >But how, if the metaphysic held is strictly materiel, to you >maintain faith in something immaterial and universal?
Maybe I'm being religious? I actually don't think I understand your question, I'll need you to clarify the grammar.
>I'd ask >the same thing about logical laws. Do you call these merely >"practical" too?
No, nor do I consider them "objective" or "truth."
>Geez, I mean as long as we're at it... how do you even justify >thinking/perception? Obviously I'm making reference to >Liebnitz (sp)...
It's german, so no "t."
>how does material account for perception?
Nobody knows, at least not yet, nor are they certain that such a question even sits within the realm of science. Of course, there a few ideas floating around on the subject. For instance, Roger Penrose has made some very interesting arguments regarding gravitationally-induced quantum decoherence. Of course most people think he's way off, and even he admits the possibility.
Here we see a difference between the average scientist and the average Christian. The scientists don't pretend to have anything close to a complete understanding of any objective "truth." We've come to terms with our own limitations. I don't think the average Christian has.
>>Why do you assume it won't? > >I assume it will.
Oh, so now you don't believe in miracles.
>I have a reason to.
Let us know what that is, we'll see if anyone finds it compelling.
>You don't.
Never said I needed one.
|