Absolute truth

Originally posted by sonship
[quote] Christians to an original and unchanging scripture as though to a final authority. This spurious conservativism is a way to conceal the reality, which is a radical uprooting of social values and collective welfare in the interests of a powerful and supremely wealthy elite. Your ultimate, absolute, final authority is wealth. The rest is confusion a ...[text shortened]... ul political and economic interests. Don't you think we're touching something deeper than that ?

Of course you don't want to get into politics. Anti politics is fundamental to totatilitarianism in America.

I have no reason to doubt that you belong to an apolitical and purely religious class of people. In a sane world, your opinions would be quitely discussed in your local chapel or church or place of worship among fellow believers.

In an insane world such as the one we inhabit, there is a weird alliance of religion and politics. The cynical manipulators who engineer this situation recognise that it provides a way to influence political behaviour. (Paranoid? Read about Leo Strauss)

Loud and angry debates about so called "culture wars" are utterly beside the point to what is happening politically. Republicans get votes by appealing to anti abortion lobbies. Clinton establishes her pseudo feminist credentials by defending abortion rights. The outcome does not matter to them - neither outcome threatens the intersts of the wealthy elite who benefit from that type of politics - which is anti politics, non politics. Rapists must get stiff sentences. False allegations must be exposed. Both appeal to middle class concerns. Neither camp will cost the wealthy elite anything at all. But neither camp will address the social and economic conditions of impoverished women or their children. False and hypocritical value systems masquerading as a moral crusade.

These synthetic moral crusades are framed in terms that wil never permit a resolution. They are intended to run forever. They make absolutely no difference to the wealthy elite and their hold over power.

One you accept that morality is the outcome of effective socialisation in its broadest sense, to include family life, communities and education systems - and much more - then you start to appreciate the significance of extreme poverty and disadvantage, the way economic change is destroying the families, the communities, the educational opportunities of the poor. But to address child poverty and the disadvantages of extreme inequality would imply a threat to the property of the affluent.

There is a reason why morality is privatised and individualised in neoliberal societies. There is a reason why the USA has worse child poverty statistics than any other developed country and many less developed ones while in the UK things are getting worse every year and may one day be as bad. There is a reason why inequality in the USA is also so severely racialised.

Of course you do not want to get into politics. You are a manifestation of anti politics. The attack on social collective support and shared (ie collective) morality is achieved ideologically by reducing everything to the level of the unsocialised individual, alone with his or her God and sod all support from their neighbours.

Originally posted by finnegan
May I recommend the King James edition of the Bible - it is widely regarded as a model example of beautifully expressed English and regular reading would enhance your skills of comprehension and communication.

[If you were a lucky English school child, you would have had access to a new edition with a forward written and signed by a Conservative governme ...[text shortened]... vid Cameron said last year: “I feel the power is lost in some more literal translations.” [/i] ]

May I recommend the King James edition of the Bible - it is widely regarded as a model example of beautifully expressed English and regular reading would enhance your skills of comprehension and communication.

That's curious. Why would you think the Old English used in 15th, 16th century would enhance my reading skills of modern day English ?

Do you think it is more universally known that torturing babies for fun is just wrong than the mechanistic characteristics of a carbon atom ?

I think the former is more definitely recognized. And I am curious about WHY that should be. I didn't insist that all who recognize that must have King James Bibles.
Innately, I think humans know that they know that they know it is wrong to torture babies for amusement.

If it is true, I would ask why it is true.

[If you were a lucky English school child, you would have had access to a new edition with a forward written and signed by a Conservative government minister, Michael Gove, had not the plan been ditched late in the day. A hilarious FT article on the episode is available here: https://next.ft.com/content/7483fa3a-a0d1-11e1-9fbd-00144feabdc0

While we are on British culture then, do you think former renowned Atheist Anthony Flew finally abandoned Atheism for Deism because his conscience simply would no longer allow him not to recognize there must be intelligence behind the workings of biology ?

Somewhat connected to your diversion into British culture.

"In the King James Bible, every event is a story worthy of a Charlton Heston movie. In its pages, illiterate fishermen speaking Aramaic, recorded in street Greek, become rhetorical giants. David Cameron said last year: “I feel the power is lost in some more literal translations.” ]

You mean illiterate Galilean fisherman concocted a character - Jesus of Nazareth and placed words into His mouth ? And their reward for doing so was exactly what ?
Usually death by some form of execution.

So Peter, John, and James in between fishing and mending fish nets, said

"Hey. Let's put one over on the whole world and invent this character Jesus, a Jewish Messiah. We'll make up deeds and words and go out and die for a myth that we knew Him before and after the Romans crucified Him."

And the other disciples said "Hey, that's a good idea! They'll publish a book about us and reprint it in every language for years to come. Are you in Andrew, Barthomew?"

"Yea."
"Yes sir"
"Count me in too"

"Now we need someone to be a traitor. Any volunteers? " Judas pops up "I'll do that part. I always did want to hang myself."

No, this conspiracy theory doesn't work. And neither does your sarcasm do anything for explaining why a deep innate recognition of certain moral issues seem evident in human beings, albeit some difficult choices in ethics to often occur.

Let me ask you this then. Do you think that the most vital truths about life can only be known by very educated people ? If you do I think that that is a monstrous elitism. It is like saying that the only people who are allowed to drink water are those who can describe the chemical components of it in scientific detail and precision.

Or it is like saying the only people qualified to BREATH are those who can explain the properties of the gas Oxygen.

But I have a suspicion that some of the most vital truths for human beings to know are accessible to the largest number of people in an innate and intrinsic way as if it is just they way they are made.

And for the rest of you Atheists out there so concerned about jumping on twhitehead's bandwagon to criticize my reading comprehension, I have a request:

Please start a thread with your name in the title. In clear, concise, easy to read English tell us why you exist in this universe. Finnegan you can take the lead. Call it -

"Why Finnegan is ALIVE"

Now for my sake it should be easy to read.

Originally posted by finnegan

Of course you don't want to get into politics. Anti politics is fundamental to totatilitarianism in America.

If there is a politics Forum, that's where I'd go to talk about my politics.

I have no reason to doubt that you belong to an apolitical and purely religious class of people.

we're talking about "Absolute truth". I don't think its Democrat or Republican or Independent or of any political leaning per se.

Jesus had a disciple who was a Zealot, which would be like an ancient Black Panther or Weathermen Underground. And He also had a disciple who was a Tax Collector, clearly a conservative establishment man for the status quo.

In a sane world, your opinions would be quitely discussed in your local chapel or church or place of worship among fellow believers.

I am not sure you know what a church really is.
The church in Jerusalem in the book of Acts met quite much "from house to house".

This is like one of the gospels saying that the whole CITY went out. The buildings were not meant, but the PEOPLE of the city. The church means the people and it is not the "chapel."

In an insane world such as the one we inhabit, there is a weird alliance of religion and politics. The cynical manipulators who engineer this situation recognise that it provides a way to influence political behaviour. (Paranoid? Read about Leo Strauss)

Do you think that because counterfeit money exists therefore there is no such thing as real money?

I don't think the existence of religious corruption proves true Spirituality does not exist or that God doesn't exist.

In fact I think the best way to be able to recognize a false thing is to continuously handle the real thing. Then you know the real matter and can recognize the counterfeit.

Loud and angry debates about so called "culture wars" are utterly beside the point to what is happening politically. Republicans get votes by appealing to anti abortion lobbies. Clinton establishes her pseudo feminist credentials by defending abortion rights. The outcome does not matter to them - neither outcome threatens the intersts of the wealthy elite who benefit from that type of politics - which is anti politics, non politics. Rapists must get stiff sentences. False allegations must be exposed. Both appeal to middle class concerns. Neither camp will cost the wealthy elite anything at all. But neither camp will address the social and economic conditions of impoverished women or their children. False and hypocritical value systems masquerading as a moral crusade.

Does this have something to do with the topic of Absolute truth ?
Or is this an attempt to avoid its possibility by insisting all morality is a matter of local politics or maybe religion / political activism ?

These synthetic moral crusades are framed in terms that wil never permit a resolution. They are intended to run forever. They make absolutely no difference to the wealthy elite and their hold over power.

That's interesting.
I think we're trying to discover if it is entirely ALL relative or whether some absolute truth could possible exist.

One you accept that morality is the outcome of effective socialisation in its broadest sense, to include family life, communities and education systems - and much more - then you start to appreciate the significance of extreme poverty and disadvantage, the way economic change is destroying the families, the communities, the educational opportunities of the poor. But to address child poverty and the disadvantages of extreme inequality would imply a threat to the property of the affluent.

Behind all these issues "Does it really MATTER" one way or another ? The answer there would be related, I think, to truth in some absolute sense.

There is a reason why morality is privatised and individualised in neoliberal societies. There is a reason why the USA has worse child poverty statistics than any other developed country and many less developed ones while in the UK things are getting worse every year and may one day be as bad. There is a reason why inequality in the USA is also so severely racialised.

Of course you do not want to get into politics. You are a manifestation of anti politics. The attack on social collective support and shared (ie collective) morality is achieved ideologically by reducing everything to the level of the unsocialised individual, alone with his or her God and sod all support from their neighbours.

I think government is better than no government.
I think good government is better than bad government.
And I think God's government is best of all.

You recommended some reading to me. I recommend my thread on "The Constitution of the kingdom" to you.

This thread seems dedicated to whether or not we could say there is something to Absolute truth in this universe with or without humans, in any time, culture, clime, language, political persuasion, ethinicity, country, age, species, planet, galaxy, whatever.

Is there such a thing as Absolute Truth? Which one of your posts here is the best on examining your answer to that question ?

Originally posted by sonship
I would much more to some silly "award" prefer the apparent answer to the problem. So far I see strong rationalization to make the less likely choice more logical.

What is starring you in the face you can't recognize, and to help you recognize the rather obvious, you complain is loading the question.

But I get it. You'll fall back on your sarcasm ra ...[text shortened]... n just admit that the moral matter of conscience is more strongly known than the material one.

The question was loaded as you set the scenario where the answer you wanted was the obvious answer. (Of course you would prefer a baby sitter to realise the wrongness of killing babies for fun, over knowledge of carbon atoms).

How about the scenario where a scientist has to save the planet from some mutated virus. Would you prefer the scientist have a knowledge of carbon atoms or an understanding that it is wrong to kill babies for fun?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
The question was loaded as you set the scenario where the answer you wanted was the obvious answer. (Of course you would prefer a baby sitter to realise the wrongness of killing babies for fun, over knowledge of carbon atoms).

How about the scenario where a scientist has to save the planet from some mutated virus. Would you prefer the scientist have a knowledge of carbon atoms or an understanding that it is wrong to kill babies for fun?

How about the scenario where a scientist has to save the planet from some mutated virus. Would you prefer the scientist have a knowledge of carbon atoms or an understanding that it is wrong to kill babies for fun?

Good question.

And my answer would be that if that scientist did know that knowledge of the carbon atom could save the human race, that would be really good.

However, if the human race that he SAVES is one in which they did not realize that torturing babies for fun is wrong, it would be better, I think, just to let them be destroyed.

Cock roaches running the planet would be better than such "human" beings.

But it was a fair twist on the question.
That's all the time I have this afternoon.

Originally posted by sonship

How about the scenario where a scientist has to save the planet from some mutated virus. Would you prefer the scientist have a knowledge of carbon atoms or an understanding that it is wrong to kill babies for fun?

Good question.

And my answer would be that if that scientist did know that knowledge of the carbon atom could save the ...[text shortened]...

But it was a fair twist on the question.
That's all the time I have this afternoon.

And I respectfully salute your answer.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

You tell me what you think, is it objectively wrong to torture children just for the fun of it?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
You tell me what you think, is it objectively wrong to torture children just for the fun of it?

You tell me, is it objectively wrong to talk incessantly about torturing children just for the fun of it?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
You tell me, is it objectively wrong to talk incessantly about torturing children just for the fun of it?

Too close to the bone? 😉 I might actually stop when you admit that it is objectively wrong and hence that moral absolutes do exist. 😛 Hard to admit isn't it? Especially when you think about all the implications thereof.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Too close to the bone? 😉 I might actually stop when you admit that it is objectively wrong and hence that moral absolutes do exist. 😛 Hard to admit isn't it? Especially when you think about all the implications thereof.

Being objectively wrong does not imply or demonstrate anything whatsoever about absolute truth or absolute moral standards.

Originally posted by finnegan
Being objectively wrong does not imply or demonstrate anything whatsoever about absolute truth or absolute moral standards.

It can only be truly objectively wrong if it is based on an absolute truth.

Absolute Truth: “Something true for all people, at all times and in all places”

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Too close to the bone? 😉 I might actually stop when you admit that it is objectively wrong and hence that moral absolutes do exist. 😛 Hard to admit isn't it? Especially when you think about all the implications thereof.

A few weeks ago my cat brought home a baby mouse (minus its head). Despite our vocalized horror, she was clearly very proud of herself.

Over the following few days she proceeded to bring home 7 other baby mice, most dead but one or two with life still in them,giving her great entertainment as she flung them around the living room.

Now i'm not saying human and cat morality is the same. Clearly it isn't. My cats 'cruelty' (for want of a better word) was nonetheless a natural part of being a cat. Killing baby mice for fun was not absolutely wrong for her, indeed it wasn't wrong at all.

Now if morality is not set by man and natural and objective absolutes exist outside of us,why does nature have my cat kill mice for fun?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
It can only be truly objectively wrong if it is based on an absolute truth.

Absolute Truth: “Something true for all people, at all times and in all places”

What do you mean by "true for all people"? Are you claiming that a sentence is true if it is universally believed? Or are you claiming the existence of a moral statements that apply universally? You see part of your argument is that the sentence: " It is wrong to torture babies for amusing entertainment." is universally agreed with. You then use that to claim a moral absolute, but I don't think you can. Your position seems to be one of moral realism, but your argument hinges on a judgement that almost all humans would agree with that sentence. You could provide evidence for this, but would essentially be relying on the fact that humans are averse to harming children, in other words are emotionally biased against it. So, you are claiming an objective truth based on a hypothesis about a groups subjective responses. Because moral realism has a set of moral rules essentially built into the fabric of the universe, what people believe correct morals are is not necessarily what truly are correct morals - in just the same way as everyone can believe a physics theory but it not actually be correct, as happened with classical physics. So there's a hole in your argument. You might claim that universal moral statements are evidence of "absolute morality", but you'd need far more evidence of universal morality throughout history to make a convincing case.

There's also the problem that there is a difference between some moral statements being universal and an entire moral code being universal. I don't think you can justify the claim of "absolute morality" based on finding an extreme example.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

These are the issues which would concern me.

I cited examples of people torturing or killing children not 'for fun' but because they believed that it was the right thing to do.

I don't think the issue is "Has ANYONE ever done these abominable things?"
The answer would likely be - Yes, as horrible as this crime is, and as universally abhorred, sadly instances of such a crime could be sited.

As with incest.
As with beastiality.
As with contract murder for money or mass murder.
As with child rape or other unspeakable atrocities.

"Look, I can show you some people DID it doesn't do that much to justify that we pretty much all agree that it is wrong.

From my Christian persepective, you have shown that what we HATE sometimes we are capable of DOING.

This was my implied question: "Is the *act* of killing children morally wrong in itself?

I see. And the question I would pose is "Is there a FINAL arbitration where each and every instance of the killing of a child will be determined as to its rightness or wrongness?"

I acknowledge that difficult situations and cases exist. I don't think anyone could dispute that. Is there an omniscient Determiner and Judge to whom obscurity on every case of child killing does not exist ?

God knows.