Go back
Bbarr - Analyze This

Bbarr - Analyze This

Spirituality

2 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

Analyze this article from the Catholic propaganda periodical CRISIS Magazine:
Truth And Apologetics
http://www.crisismagazine.com/julaug2006/wagner.htm

If you have extra time, comment on this one:
Godless Morality? Why Judeo-Christianity Is Necessary For Human Rights
http://www.crisismagazine.com/julaug2006/feature2.htm

They are both right up your alley.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Analyze this article from the Catholic propaganda periodical CRISIS Magazine:
[b]Truth And Apologetics
http://www.crisismagazine.com/julaug2006/wagner.htm

If you have extra time, comment on this one:
Godless Morality? Why Judeo-Christianity Is Necessary For Human Rights
http://www.crisismagazine.com/julaug2006/feature2.htm

They are both right up your alley.[/b]
I'll get right on it.

Vote Up
Vote Down

O.K., Herr Doctor, what would you like to know?

3 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by bbarr
O.K., Herr Doctor, what would you like to know?
First, are Wagner's characterizations of the four theories of truth factually accurate, or does he mischaracterize them?

Additionally, is his analysis of the four theories correct or flawed? In particular, ought we reject subjectivisim and deflationary theory out of hand as he suggests?

In your professional opinion as an epistemologist, does Wagner know what the hell he is talking about? Would you allow him to guest lecture your classes?

2 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

As for the second article, are Fesser's and Benedict's claims correct?

The state of things in contemporary secular moral theorizing does not appear to provide much ground for optimism. Benedict XVI, in a speech given just prior to his recent election, warned that “we are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one's own ego and one's own desires.”


In your professional opinion as an ethical and metaethical theorist, do either of them know what they hell they are talking about?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
As for the second article, are Fesser's and Benedict's claims correct?

[quote]The state of things in contemporary secular moral theorizing does not appear to provide much ground for optimism. Benedict XVI, in a speech given just prior to his recent election, warned that “we are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize an ...[text shortened]... ical and metaethical theorist, do either of them know what they hell they are talking about?
A dictatorship of relativism? What kind of double-speak is that?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by rwingett
A dictatorship of relativism? What kind of double-speak is that?
It's being let loose in a shopping mall of infinite dimension with an infinite variety of goods with infinite $ in your hand.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
In your professional opinion as an epistemologist, does Wagner know what the hell he is talking about? Would you allow him to guest lecture your classes?
Would one allow Bbarr to guest lecture one's classes?

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by rwingett
A dictatorship of relativism? What kind of double-speak is that?
"Be a relativist, or else."

Simply put.

EDIT: Or "Accept a relativist society, or else."

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by lucifershammer
"Be a relativist, or else."

Simply put.

EDIT: Or "Accept a relativist society, or else."
That's like saying Democracy is a dictatorship because everyone is forced to be free.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by rwingett
That's like saying Democracy is a dictatorship because everyone is forced to be free.
Do you know about Arrow's impossibility theorem?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by rwingett
That's like saying Democracy is a dictatorship because everyone is forced to be free.
Not at all. It would be like saying that a democracy where everyone is forced to vote for just one candidate is a dictatorship.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Not at all. It would be like saying that a democracy where everyone is forced to vote for just one candidate is a dictatorship.
Or like saying that a God who forces everyone to choose between worshipping him and suffering eternal torment is a benevolent one.

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Or like saying that a God who forces everyone to choose between worshipping him and suffering eternal torment is a benevolent one.
No. That would be like saying that someone is malevolent for pointing out that if you don't drink [water], you get thirsty.

EDIT: If you choose to never drink [water], you will always be thirsty.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Let's count the false analogies!

HA HA

jk