[quote]While some acknowledge the debt which Britain owes to the ÂJudaeo-Christian tradition, they claim also that the values derived from it are now free-standing and that they can also be derived from other world-views. As to them being free-standing, the danger, rather, is that we are living on past capital which is showing increasing signs of being exhausted.
Values and virtues by which we live require what Bishop Lesslie Newbigin called �??plausibility structures�?? for their continuing credibility. They cannot indefinitely exist in a vacuum.[/quote]
“Living on past capital.” Sounds about right. But for how much longer?
Something that is important to understand about Nazir Ali is the British liberals have been able to instill a high degree of discomfiture in the English people when it comes to discussing issues of cultural and racial differences.
The British PC brigade has created such a climate of intimidation that it takes someone with his credentials (dark skinned, immigrant, muslim convert) to be able to talk about what is going on there.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Something that is important to understand about Nazir Ali is the British liberals have been able to instill a high degree of discomfiture in the English people when it comes to discussing issues of cultural and racial differences.
The British PC brigade has created such a climate of intimidation that it takes someone with his credentials (dark skinned, immigrant, muslim convert) to be able to talk about what is going on there. [/quote]
He just has balls. Big ones. Is he the last “Englishman” with them? I pray not. Praying’s about the only thing we can do at this point. Anyways, he’s received plenty of death threats already for other stuff he’s said, so I think he’s pretty unafraid of what will happen to him. The fact that he’s brown helps, I’m sure, but he’s not making any statements about race. Islam is not a race.
You have to understand something about the British, they don’t have the same view on freedom of speech as we have here. To be critical of Islam is to risk jail.
There was a TV newscrew who did an undercover investigation of a mosque who were interogated by the police afterwards because they aired speeches by the Imam where he came out with some really predjudicial views. The problem the police had was not with the Imam inciting hatred instead their problem was with the newscrew informing people of what he was saying.
All across Europe governments are working to create a climate of fear and intimidation when it comes to people saying what is on their mind.
If we were living in Europe and this forum was a European one. Many of us on this board could be facing criminal charges for some of our views. Especially you PRCalDude.
Right before the London bombings the liberal party voted to reinstate the 16th century blasphemy law. They were going to use it to give Islam a special protected status. They were going to make it illegal for non-muslims to quote passages from the Koran that are predjudicial. They were going to classify it as inciting hatred. After the bombing they decided not to go ahead but they almost did it.
Tony Bliar during prime ministers questions was asked if he supported making holocaust denial illegal like it is in several European countries and he said yes he did. This is the kind of dictatorial mentality they have over there.
Jail there isn’t as bad as jail here though. They don’t lock you up for as long and a lot of people just don’t show up for jail in some countries. In Germany, murder 1 only gets you 15 years. The guy who runs the thehomegunsmith.com only did 5 years for making a full auto submachine gun.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
…And the Judeo-Christian tradition:
While some acknowledge the debt which Britain owes to the ÂJudaeo-Christian tradition, they claim also that the values derived from it are now free-standing and that they can also be derived from other world-views. As to them being free-standing, the danger, rather, is that we are living on past capital which is showing increasing signs of being exhausted.
Values and virtues by which we live require what Bishop Lesslie Newbigin called �??plausibility structures�?? for their continuing credibility. They cannot indefinitely exist in a vacuum.
“Living on past capital.” Sounds about right. But for how much longer?
this man speaks pompously out of what is most likely willful ignorance. There are very few values that western civilization owes to the judaeo-christian tradition. most of the values which christians so loudly try to claim credit for either originated long before Christ and independently of the jews in other traditions which shaped the modern west, or were the work of secular men fighting the church’s bigotry. (say like the greeks and romans). a basic knowledge of history shows this is true.
i honestly won’t debate this, its quite a silly claim. the church has a horrible history of what are today considered immoral and bigoted acts. further, many of the freedom’s held so fundamental today (like the freedom of speech) came from secular men. in ages when heresy was punishable by death, the church was not exactly a bastion of free speech.
lastly, if this man thinks that morality cannot exist without religion, then he is wrong. a basic survey of modern studies of ethics shows that in fact, it is possible, and often done. Furthermore, there are actually many theoretical problems with basing a moral code on religion. Sorry to say, but for Christian doctrine, the argument that “without a law giver there can be no laws” leads strait to contradiction. (if you don’t have a clue what i’m talking about, perhaps you should actually do some reading, and actually study ethics and philosophy for yourself).
in sum, i would not attack this statement if the statement wasn’t unashamedly biased and ignorant. while one might argue these points (and is free to do so, unless you happen to live through most of the church’s history), this man concedes nothing, and ignores obvious evidence to the contrary.
oh, I have. I haven’t encountered a logically consistent atheistic ethical framework yet. But you may introduce one hear on this thread that I hadn’t heard of.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
(if you don’t have a clue what i’m talking about, perhaps you should actually do some reading, and actually study ethics and philosophy for yourself).
oh, I have. I haven’t encountered a logically consistent atheistic ethical framework yet. But you may introduce one hear on this thread that I hadn’t heard of. [/quote]
First, christian ethic’s isn’t exactly consistent without a substantial amount of ad hoc amendments and clarifications. Even then, given the christian’s claim of biblical inerrancy these ad hoc amendments often only lead to more contradiction.
Next, i concede that no secular ethical framework is totally consistent, or answers all questions, or agrees nicely will all our intuitive thoughts on morality. with that said, considering the fact that the Christian ethical framework also has these same problems, i fail to see how this matters.
Also, my area of concentration in school is philosophy. while i don’t concentrate on ethics, i have covered a large bit of it in survey classes (and in my own reading. some of it is interesting). so you could say i’ve studied and read it as well. given my own experience in the field and given the breath of the field, it seems irrational to sweepingly brush aside all ethical systems but one. What is much more rational is to try to consider the systems point by point. one system might succeed better then another in one area, and so on.
i myself think aristotle’s approach to the topic of ethics works best. while aristotle’s naturalized approach to ethics differs both in scope and method from a classical religious approach, it seems to succeed quite well in studying normative claims and their applications. aristotle is actually enjoying quite a resurgence in modern ethics studies. I also think Kant is quite interesting, though he’s a bit to complicated to touch on here. i’m not so hot on the other main approaches to ethics (such as utilitarianism), though i’m not expert on ethics.
my final comment on christian ethical framework is this. modern christian studies in ethics seem quite shallow. i think the church’s current distrust of philosophical and scientific study has a lot to do with that. Augustine and Aquinas have interesting things to say about ethics. i think if i was a christian i would want to focus on either them, or ibn sina.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Do you live in Britain, stokedporcupine?[/quote]
no. from what i hear, i doubt i’d want to live there. i never said that i thought the current ethical state of either Britain or America was very good. In fact, i think there are many things wrong with what seems to be the current outlook and world view of your average American (and i assume, Britain). though i’m sure my list of ethical concerns wouldn’t match yours perfectly, i’m sure it overlaps quite a bit.
this does not mean though that i think a “return to God” is the answer.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Next, i concede that no secular ethical framework is totally consistent, or answers all questions, or agrees nicely will all our intuitive thoughts on morality.
So, you’re moral outrage at Bishop Ali’s essay is based on what, exactly?[/quote]
it is based on my own developed sense of morality. after all, since there are no perfect, completely consistent ethicals systems out there, and since we still make normative claims, it seems that it is possible to judge without such a system.
if you want particulars, i found his remarks scornful for the following reasons (Which i said anyway): 1. since i assume he is an educated man, his remarks suggest he is willful ignorant of ethical systems that differ from his own. 2. given this apparently irrational willful ignorance, he strikes me as bigoted. 3. he sounds like an overly pompous ass.
though really, i enjoy the sophistical tricks. please keep them coming.
[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Do you live in Britain, stokedporcupine?
no. from what i hear, i doubt i’d want to live there. i never said that i thought the current ethical state of either Britain or America was very good. In fact, i think there are many things wrong with what seems to be the current outlook and world view of your average American (and i assume, Britain). though i’m sure my list of ethical concerns wouldn’t match yours perfectly, i’m sure it overlaps quite a bit.
this does not mean though that i think a “return to God” is the answer. [/quote]
Lol. The ethical state is not “good,” (though you can’t define what “good” even is), but that’s no reason to “return to God” because that definitely can’t be “good.”
I see. In the beginning, there was You. The word was with You, and the word was You.
You know what they say about assuming. He may be well versed in the other ethical systems out there and found them inconsistent.
Bigotry is not always a bad thing, though liberals like yourself think it is. If I’m bigoted against a system that says “kill the infidels,” perhaps I’m simply being moral.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
stokedporcupine wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Do you live in Britain, stokedporcupine?
no. from what i hear, i doubt i’d want to live there. i never said that i thought the current ethical state of either Britain or America was very good. In fact, i think there are many things wrong with what seems to be the current outlook and world view of your average American (and i assume, Britain). though i’m sure my list of ethical concerns wouldn’t match yours perfectly, i’m sure it overlaps quite a bit.
this does not mean though that i think a “return to God” is the answer.
Lol. The ethical state is not “good,” (though you can’t define what “good” even is), but that’s no reason to “return to God” because that definitely can’t be “good.” [/quote]
what?
i never said i could not define the word “good”. the rest of your response employs a basic logical fallacy of begging the question.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
it is based on my own developed sense of morality.
I see. In the beginning, there was You. The word was with You, and the word was You.
[/quote]
i obviously never claimed that i was somehow a standard of morality… i claimed that based on my experience, my study of ethics, and some thought that i was making a normative claim about these comments.
i’ve already hinted at this, i was hoping you’d pick up on it, but i suppose not. No one is that well versed in all other ethical systems that they can simply dismiss them all. anyone well versed in ethics will know that the systems overlap, share common terms and definitions, derive some of the same values, etc…
first, i am not liberal by almost any sense of the term. i am not liberal in my social positions or in my positions on government. being critical of religion does not amount of being “liberal”.
next, dogmatism isn’t always a bad thing, for sure. holding absolute positions on matters of morality isn’t bad either. I myself hold that there are moral absolutes, and that morality is not relative. Bigotry though, broadly conceived as an irrational bias or an unwillingness to change when faced with reason to, is bad.
[quote]
3. he sounds like an overly pompous ass.
Right. Because he doesn’t agree with you. [/quote]
no, i listed the reasons already, and they have nothing to do with his agreement or disagreement with me.
you see, i enjoy discussing things with people and i like when people disagree with me. (of course, its nice when the people are reasonable and can think critically).
you know sometimes, i understand why lixy resorts to such extreme sarcasm.
[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
stokedporcupine wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Do you live in Britain, stokedporcupine?
no. from what i hear, i doubt i’d want to live there. i never said that i thought the current ethical state of either Britain or America was very good. In fact, i think there are many things wrong with what seems to be the current outlook and world view of your average American (and i assume, Britain). though i’m sure my list of ethical concerns wouldn’t match yours perfectly, i’m sure it overlaps quite a bit.
this does not mean though that i think a “return to God” is the answer.
Lol. The ethical state is not “good,” (though you can’t define what “good” even is), but that’s no reason to “return to God” because that definitely can’t be “good.”
what?
i never said i could not define the word “good”. the rest of your response employs a basic logical fallacy of begging the question.
[/quote]
So the norm you’re using is your experience and some ethical system? Which?
Or a logically consistent secular ethical system hasn’t arisen to provide us with normative standards upon which to base a civilization. Perhaps the Aristotlian ethics you hinted at will be of some help several millenia after they were invented. Seems odd , though, that nothing has emerged besides Christianity for all of the trying of you secular philosophers.
Again, my bad. They were based on some moral outrage of the church’s behavior (though the Christian church isn’t a monolith). I just can’t seem to figure out what normative standard you’re using to calibrate your outrage.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
stokedporcupine wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
stokedporcupine wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Do you live in Britain, stokedporcupine?
no. from what i hear, i doubt i’d want to live there. i never said that i thought the current ethical state of either Britain or America was very good. In fact, i think there are many things wrong with what seems to be the current outlook and world view of your average American (and i assume, Britain). though i’m sure my list of ethical concerns wouldn’t match yours perfectly, i’m sure it overlaps quite a bit.
this does not mean though that i think a “return to God” is the answer.
Lol. The ethical state is not “good,” (though you can’t define what “good” even is), but that’s no reason to “return to God” because that definitely can’t be “good.”
what?
i never said i could not define the word “good”. the rest of your response employs a basic logical fallacy of begging the question.
Oh. My mistake. What is “good” and why?
[/quote]
i’ll waste more of my time discussing this with you when you take the discussion seriously and when it seems like you are actually putting thought into your posts.
i told you i think Aristotle’s general approach to ethics and his treatment of meta-ethical principles is best. if you really want to know how i’d define “good”, you could start by actually reading Aristotle. since you are so well versed in ethical theories, i’m sure you’ll have a copy of the nicomachean and eudemian ethics handy. (its open source on the internet anyway…)
you’ve selectively responded to my posts and you’ve ignored any real points i’ve made, instead opting to twist things i say around and then attack them using nearly incoherent fallacies. but anyway… i claimed that the bishop’s comments where untrue and distorted at best, and at worst ignorant and bigoted. you then, instead of showing me why i was wrong–why the comments were not untrue and not distorted (if you pay careful attention, you’ll notice that these arn’t normative claims, and thus that my definition of good is irrelevant. whether it was a good thing for the bishop to make the comments is only a personal, side issue.), merely attacked me with straw-man arguments.
“the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim”
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
i obviously never claimed that i was somehow a standard of morality… i claimed that based on my experience, my study of ethics, and some thought that i was making a normative claim about these comments.
So the norm you’re using is your experience and some ethical system? Which?
i’ve already hinted at this, i was hoping you’d pick up on it, but i suppose not. No one is that well versed in all other ethical systems that they can simply dismiss them all. anyone well versed in ethics will know that the systems overlap, share common terms and definitions, derive some of the same values, etc…
Or a logically consistent secular ethical system hasn’t arisen to provide us with normative standards upon which to base a civilization. Perhaps the Aristotlian ethics you hinted at will be of some help several millenia after they were invented. Seems odd , though, that nothing has emerged besides Christianity for all of the trying of you secular philosophers.
no, i listed the reasons already, and they have nothing to do with his agreement or disagreement with me.
Again, my bad. They were based on some moral outrage of the church’s behavior (though the Christian church isn’t a monolith). I just can’t seem to figure out what normative standard you’re using to calibrate your outrage. [/quote]
do you have any idea what the difference is between a meta-ethical principle and an ethical principle? can you tell the difference between a factual claim and a normative one? or, do you simply confuse them all when it is convenient?