Originally posted by Nemesio The only think that the behavior of the claimant indicates is whether or not they are a hypocrite,
not whether or not the statement is intrinsically true.
OK--you put that in clear language rather than obfuscating the hell of out of it, and I agree with you: a person's morality has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not their statement is true. Sorry to have confused things. Where do we go from here?
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage Where do we go from here?
Science, and its supposed testability seems to have priority over other kinds of truths. I have offered a few ideas about the faults of this point. Based on that, are certain facts/truths more related to morality than others? or can we evaluate every truth claim independantly from morality?
Originally posted by Nemesio Neither. I said 'we are prone to be distracted.' I meant precisely what I said. A person who
makes a moral proclamation A and then, himself, does ~A is distracting the inattentive examiner
of the proclamation, for we expect a person who proclaims the validity of A to follow it, hence
my example with the Pope who fathers a child.
Whenever we are pr ...[text shortened]... rong [b]because he is biased
against the RCC' is idiotic and should be avoided.
Nemesio[/b]
about biases, RBHILL may be biased against the RCC but
you need to make sure you don't pigeonhole him as biased in
general. Like if he was a karate champ and he ventures an opinion
on who is the best fighter, he is probably basing it on real
analysis. Just saying don't automatically assume he is biased in
another field because of a known bias in a separate area.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage OK yes we can what then?
Well then, let's give this its spiritual bent. Can we evaluate spiritual/religious truth claims (assuming they are testable) apart from the morality of a particular faith's adherents?
Originally posted by kingdanwa Can we evaluate spiritual/religious truth claims (assuming they are testable) apart from the morality of a particular faith's adherents?
I don't know, we can try. How would you go about this evaluation?
Originally posted by kingdanwa I'll start a new thread, so that newcomers won't have to dig through my old filth to get to the issue. I'll have it up in a couple minutes.
The thread, that hopes to evaluate a secular event in order to set up criteria to evaluate a "spiritual" event is trying to take place under the thread, The Grassy Knoll.
Originally posted by kingdanwa The thread, that hopes to evaluate a secular event in order to set up criteria to evaluate a "spiritual" event is trying to take place under the thread, The Grassy Knoll.
comparing apples to oranges will be fruitless . You are trying to compare a Plum to a string without a bob.
Originally posted by kingdanwa Shouldn't a person's moral character be a factor in determining whether or not he speaks the truth?
Thats the difference between politics and science. In science, whether he speaks the truth is the main factor in determining whether he speaks the truth. It can be shown mathematically. Not that anyone cares about the moral character of politicians. And how is communism immoral? It's just another political ideology.
31 Aug '05 17:57
E does NOT equal MC Squared
Back to Top