Monday, August 16, 2010

What males and females are for

In the newest issue of Touchstone Magazine, Anthony Esolen puts the Supreme Court decision on California's Proposition 8 in perspective even before it happened. In his article, entitled "Sanctity & Matrimony: Ten Arguments in Defense of Marriage," Esolen writes,
The acceptance of homosexuality is predicated upon the assumption that male and female are not made for each other.
I had not thought of it this way before. But, of course, this is just a species of the larger problem of the abandonment of final causality: nothing is for anything. Nothing has any intrinsic purpose at all --except when you are a scientist and you forget yourself and start muttering about parts of things being for this or that despite your rejection of the same things outside your discipline.

In fact it is interesting that those who will talk about every other bodily organ being for something (a heart is "for" pumping blood, a kidney is "for" filtering the blood, etc.) will turn right around and deny that the sexual organs are for what they are obviously for (and what, by inference, they are not for).

This just underscores the vast divide that exists between those of us who consistently accept that there are intrinsic purposes in things (including all bodily organs), and those who inconsistently reject it.

105 comments:

Singring said...

What happened to 'freewill', Martin? Who made you the commissar giving out decrees on body part functions? Next you will be telling us what our arms 'are for' and our legs 'are for' - because obviously, every appendage and organ has a specific purpose that only you know and that only you can tell us about.

So - what is my arm 'for' exactly? Can I use it to masturbate - or is that not what its 'for'? And more importantly: How do you know?

The straws Prop 8 advocates are clutching at at this stage are just hilarious.

Martin Cothran said...

Where do I set forth decrees about what body parts are for? It's pretty self-evident what body parts are for, and it has little to do with what you are I would prefer they are for.

What is a heart for?

One Brow said...

I would submit that the real problem is saying you can know what a particular part, or act, is for. Is the pumping of blood for the purpose of carrying oxygen, carrying waste, or fighting disease? It serves all three causes.

Similarly, is sex primarily about reproduction or about social relationships? There are species in which sex occurs but is not involved in reproduction. There are species where sex occurs but it does not encourage social relationships among the creatures involved. So, scientifically, how do you make that determination?

Scientists will causally, or religiously, discuss what something is for. Scientifically, they jsut discuss what it does.

Lee said...

I think marriage evolved, if you will, arbitrarily with regard to sex. Totally. Utterly. Sex really had nothing to do with it, and only an ignorant fundamentalist thinks that male parts and female parts were specifically designed to spend any time together.

In the Stone Age, some men married women, others married other men, some married sheep or buffalo. A small minority favored sea sponges. Even pebbles, if they were smooth and attractive enough, found favor in some cultures. That's where the phrase, "Got his rocks off" originated. And everyone was happy.

But somehow, those who favored women got the upper hand and dictated the definition of marriage to everyone else. It probably had something to do with the evil religionists taking control of everything and dictating morality to everyone.

All we're doing now is righting historic wrongs.

Next, we'll talk about reparations.

Martin Cothran said...

One Brow,

1. Are you saying that not knowing what something is logically implies not knowing that it is? There are many things that exist that we don't know the natures of.

2. Are you saying that the fact that something may have multiple purposes is an argument that they don't have purposes at all?

3. Are you denying that the purpose of the heart is to pump blood? What does the further ramifications of the fact that the heart does pump blood have anything to do with that fact?

4. Why does the purpose of sex in other species have any bearing on what it is for humans? Are you saying that because something has a particular purpose in one species it must therefore have the same purpose in another?

Martin Cothran said...

Lee,

I would like to post your frightening historicist scenario (slightly edited for my family audience) on the main page. Let me know if that's not okay.

Singring said...

'Where do I set forth decrees'

Right here:

'This just underscores the vast divide that exists between those of us who consistently accept that there are intrinsic purposes in things (including all bodily organs), and those who inconsistently reject it.'

You clearly state that you are 'one of those' who say that there is an 'intrinsic purpose' to all body parts and since the conext was the statement by Esotlen, you are firmly stating that our sex organs are made for coupling with those of the body parts of the oppsoite sex - period.

If there are these 'intrinsic
purposes' to all body parts, then I have some questions for you, Martin, since you seem to know all of these purposes from some source you haven't divulged yet. The questions are:

1.) What is a hand for? If I use it to masturbate, is that part of its 'intrinsic purpose' or not?

2.) Is oral sex part of the 'intrinsic purpose' of the penis/vagina?

3.) I am male. What are my nipples for?

4.) I'd also like to know from whence you derive your knowledge of the 'intrinsic purposes' of these parts and what evidence you have to support the validity of that source.

Discrimination based on sex is on its way out, Martin. Your pie in the sky attempts at stemming that tide of social change with this kind of argument are nothing short of embarassing.

Singring said...

'But somehow, those who favored women got the upper hand and dictated the definition of marriage to everyone else.'

Your post would be more funny if it were internally consistent, but since you mock an evolutionary explanation for sex and sexual preference yet then proceed to completely get the evolutionary background wrong as the quote above shows - better luck next time.

This one did make me chuckle, though:

'That's where the phrase, "Got his rocks off" originated.'

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

So you are saying that if someone says he believes a thing has a purpose, that he therefore believes he is determining the purpose? A "decree" is when someone effects the thing of which he speaks. A decree differs from the simple statement of a belief. You have cited the latter and concluded it is an instance of the former.

Maybe you could give some kind of logical justification for this.

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

You also assume that if someone believes something exists (as I have said I believe intrinsic purposes exist) that they therefore know specifically what those purposes are. Again, you are not observing clear distinctions. I can know that something is without knowing what it is. Happens all the time.

There are three things you can believe about intrinsic purpose:

1. All things have intrinsic purposes;
2. Something things have intrinsic purposes; or
3. Nothing has an intrinsic purpose

You clearly don't accept 1., but it is unclear to me whether you accept 2. or 3.

Please clarify.

And you haven't answered my question: What is a heart for?

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

And by the way, when you say that my what you describe as my attempts at "stemming the tide of social change" are "embarrassing," are you saying you think they are morally wrong?

Lee said...

Yes you may, Martin. I would be honored.

Singring said...

A few things I note with interest, Martin:

1.) You did not even begin to adress any of my questions. Why should I adress yours if you are not civil enough to return the favour?

Since I know I can defend my position (something you seem to shirk from at every opportunity), I will in fact answer your questions and show you how that's done:

'So you are saying that if someone says he believes a thing has a purpose, that he therefore believes he is determining the purpose?'

No. But since you proudly link to TV appearances of yourself opposing gay marriage, have called for Republicans to amend the constitution to ban gay marriage and have just posted this very post where you support Prop 8, I think its absolutely stunning that you are pretending you are taking no position on what the actual purpose of the penis is. Is this what passes for honesty in Christian circles? How stupid do you take your readers to be?

Are you in fact NOT trying to pass laws that prohibit the marriage of gay couples? Have you in fact NOT used the claim that our genitals are made for a purpose (insertion in the opposite sex only!) to support this position?

Let me ask you more directly:

Do you support laws that prohibit the marriage of gay people? Yes or No?

'You also assume that if someone believes something exists (as I have said I believe intrinsic purposes exist) that they therefore know specifically what those purposes are.'

So we agree that we don;t know what the 'intrinsic purpose' of the penis and vagina is and that therefore everyone can use them as they see fit, including with the same sex? GREAT!

...but then why did you write this post? Why do you oppose gay marriage if you in fact do not know the purpose of genetalia?

'Please clarify.'

For a philosopher, you don't do very well at presenting options that cover all the bases. I go for option 4, which you apparently forgot was possible:

There may be things that have an intrinsic purpose but I see no reason or evidence to support that notion and until given reason to think so I do not accept the proposition. Clear enough?

'when you say that my what you describe as my attempts at "stemming the tide of social change" are "embarrassing," are you saying you think they are morally wrong?'

I think they are morally wrong, yes. But that's just my opinion. I'm a complete moral relativist, so don't even try to change the subject and play that old 'you have no moral bases to oppose me' card - my opinion of people who use it is extremely low.

Now, I have answered your questions.

Answer mine. Especially the one about nipples, that's always puzzled me.

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

Here are the answers to your questions:

1.) What is a hand for? To manipulate objects at the behest of the central nervous system.

2.) [What is the purpose of the genitals?] In the case of the male, to urinate and to procreate.

3.) I am male. What are my nipples for? I don't know, but you would look pretty funny without them.

4.) I'd also like to know from whence you derive your knowledge of the 'intrinsic purposes' of these parts and what evidence you have to support the validity of that source. Reason, intuition, observation, and, in some cases, revelation.

Martin Cothran said...

Now, maybe you would care to answer my question, which I am now asking for the third time:

What is the heart for?

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

I think its absolutely stunning that you are pretending you are taking no position on what the actual purpose of the penis is. Is this what passes for honesty in Christian circles? How stupid do you take your readers to be?

Well, I'm sure they are not stupid enough to infer from anything that I have said that I have no position on the organ in question.

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

Do you support laws that prohibit the marriage of gay people? Yes or No?

No. Anyone can get married including gay people. "Marriage" means--under every definition ever used until people in the last few years demanded that we change it--a relationship between a male and a female. That does not prohibit gays from getting married.

Martin Cothran said...

Singring:

'You also assume that if someone believes something exists (as I have said I believe intrinsic purposes exist) that they therefore know specifically what those purposes are.'

So we agree that we don;t know what the 'intrinsic purpose' of the penis and vagina is and that therefore everyone can use them as they see fit, including with the same sex? GREAT!


Do you really think that logically follows from what I said? Does it make you feel clever to draw a bad inference and claim victory? You have accused me several times of intellectual dishonesty, but if you're going to do it, you really ought to be careful of engaging in it yourself.

Singring said...

Thanks for asnwering.

'1.) What is a hand for? To manipulate objects at the behest of the central nervous system.'

Ok. The penis is an object. Therefore masturbation is ok. So we already have another purposes for the penis. Now we are getting places.

'2.) [What is the purpose of the genitals?] In the case of the male, to urinate and to procreate.'

Nice try. Can a penis procreate? I'd like to see that. The correct phrasing of the above would be to 'urinate and eject semen'. Now for the prize question: is there an 'intrinsic purpose' as to where that semen is ejected? If so, what is it and how do you know it? All you have described thus far are biological functions - not 'intrinsic purposes'.

'3.) I am male. What are my nipples for? I don't know, but you would look pretty funny without them.'

Funnier than I do with them? How come you know the 'intrinsic purpose' of the penis but not of the nipples?

'Reason, intuition, observation, and, in some cases, revelation.'

I agree with the first and third because they are evidence-based. Intuition? How is your intuition more valid than a gay man's intuition? Revelation? Any evidence for that source?

'Now, maybe you would care to answer my question, which I am now asking for the third time:'

Sorry, I missed that one:

I don't know whether the heart has a 'purpose', intrinsic or not. It has a biological function, which is to pump blood.

'they are not stupid enough to infer from anything that I have said that I have no position on the organ in question.'

VS


'You also assume that if someone believes something exists (as I have said I believe intrinsic purposes exist) that they therefore know specifically what those purposes are.'

What will it be Martin - do you have a position on the purpose of the penis or not?

'Anyone can get married including gay people. '

Clever. I should have been more precise in my wording, thanks for pointing that out. Revision:

Do you support laws that ban same-sex marriage?

Singring said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Singring said...

'Do you really think that logically follows from what I said?'

Of course not. But that's not why I phrased it the way I did. I just wanted a clear admission from you that in fact you DO claim there is an intrinsic purpose and that you actually KNOW what that is! Which you just did. Thanks.

So, Martin.

Let's hear your evidence...

...how do you know the 'intrinsic purpose' of the penis? Let's hear some specific reasons and arguments, please.

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

You seem to have trouble in making basic distinctions, so let me try to be of some help.

1), you seem to think that because the purpose of something itsel1.) What is a hand for? To manipulate objects at the behest of the central nervous system.'

Ok. The penis is an object. Therefore masturbation is ok. So we already have another purposes for the penis. Now we are getting places.


Masterbation would be "okay" only in the context of the purpose of the hand. But the hand is not a moral being. The human, the whole of which the hand is a part and who possesses the central nervous system to which the hand answers, is a moral being. And it is not "okay" from the perspective of the purpose of the human.

Singring said...

'Masterbation would be "okay" only in the context of the purpose of the hand. But the hand is not a moral being.'

But the penis IS?

'And it is not "okay" from the perspective of the purpose of the human.'

Ohhhh...so now you're saying that it's only humans that have a purpose. Right. Because from your posts it seems you were saying the penis has a purpose. Wait...

'In fact it is interesting that those who will talk about every other bodily organ being for something (a heart is "for" pumping blood, a kidney is "for" filtering the blood, etc.) the sexual organs are for what they are obviously for (and what, by inference, they are not for).

This just underscores the vast divide that exists between those of us who consistently accept that there are intrinsic purposes in things (including all bodily organs), and those who inconsistently reject it.'

...you DID say the penis has a purpose. I'm all confused now.

Martin, really - think about what you say for at least two seconds before you post.

Singring said...

To make it clear, Martin:

he 'purpose' in the context of the penis as an organ only is to eject sperm (this is analogous to your claim that a hand has the purpose of manipulating objects).

IF you are going to argue that it is morally not ok for the penis to ejeculate in some places, I'd like to hear your reasons for believing that.

Are they observational? Are they reasoned?

Or are they based on 'revelation'?

KyCobb said...

Martin said,

"Masterbation would be "okay" only in the context of the purpose of the hand. But the hand is not a moral being. The human, the whole of which the hand is a part and who possesses the central nervous system to which the hand answers, is a moral being. And it is not "okay" from the perspective of the purpose of the human."

And Martin thinks he is just the person to tell you what is and isn't "okay" for you to do with your penis, even if you are minding your own business and not bothering anyone else.

Martin Cothran said...

No, KyCobb, you've got it all wrong: I am in the unenviable position of trying to explain to someone what a penis is for.

I think Singring just never got that "birds and bees" talk.

Singring said...

'I think Singring just never got that "birds and bees" talk.'

This from a man who is afraid of writing the word 'penis' and instead has to use 'the organ in question'.

Hi-la-ri-ous!

By the way - I'm still waiting for an actual explanation. But that's just a minor quibble when all we are talking about is the happiness of millions of gay people in the USA.

One Brow said...

1. Are you saying that not knowing what something is logically implies not knowing that it is? There are many things that exist that we don't know the natures of.

I assume you are here referring to what a "purpose" is. I am saying that if we are denied knowing what a purpose is due to the very nature of purpose, then we should not be be integrating into law whatever purpose we find convenient.

2. Are you saying that the fact that something may have multiple purposes is an argument that they don't have purposes at all?

No.

3. Are you denying that the purpose of the heart is to pump blood? What does the further ramifications of the fact that the heart does pump blood have anything to do with that fact?

I don't recall addressing the purpose of the heart. However, pumping blood is itself a subsidiary process to other things.

4. Why does the purpose of sex in other species have any bearing on what it is for humans? Are you saying that because something has a particular purpose in one species it must therefore have the same purpose in another?

In humans, sex has both effects that I mentioned, both reproduction and to encourage social relatuionships. Therefore, if I were to assign a purpose, both would apply. How would you scientifically choose one over the other?

Martin Cothran said...

Okay, before we spin off in too many directions, let's clarify the context of this discussion. The general context is, as the title of the post indicates, the purpose of males and females, both of which, of course are humans.

When you discuss the purpose of particular organs, you are discussing them within that context. And, I will once again articulate the principle that the purpose of a part of some whole can only be considered properly within the context of the purpose of the whole.

If someone disagrees with that principle, fine. We can discuss that. But if that principle is granted, then to have discussions of the purpose of an organ outside the purpose of the human being of which the organ is a part is just nonsensical.

In addition, it seems to me that there is one even more fundamental principle: that things can have intrinsic purposes at all.

How if either or both of these principles is in dispute here, then we need to talk about those principles themselves rather than to continue the discussion without addressing them.

So, I'll ask the question, does anyone here disagree with these two principles:

1. That natural things (not artificial things) have an intrinsic purpose (or purposes);

2. That the purpose of a part of any whole is subservient (and answerable) to the purpose of the whole of which it is a part.

?

Lee said...

> Your post would be more funny if it were internally consistent...

For some reason, I am reminded of an old joke from the 1970s...

Q: How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb?

A: That's *not* *funny*!!

Singring said...

'So, I'll ask the question, does anyone here disagree with these two principles:

1. That natural things (not artificial things) have an intrinsic purpose (or purposes);

2. That the purpose of a part of any whole is subservient (and answerable) to the purpose of the whole of which it is a part.'

I do.

I disagree with the first. It could be that natural things have a 'purpose' (and you neglected to define that term) - but I see no reason to think they do, so I don't think they do. I stated this quite clearly earlier on.

Since 2 can only apply if 1 is true, I must aslo for the moment disagree with 2.

Singring said...

'Q: How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb?

A: That's *not* *funny*!!'

I have a much funnier one but I don't think Martin would appreciate the language it contains being on his blog so I'll refrain.

Jokes are fun.

But we are discussing a real issue here.

Lee said...

> But we are discussing a real issue here.

Is that Singringese for "Shut up?"

Singring said...

'Is that Singringese for "Shut up?"'

No. Its Singringese for 'if you want to discuss this issue, you're welcome to - but if your only contributions to the gay marriage debate are a falsehoods and a feminist joke, then you are not advancing the argument at hand but instead are proving yourself to be the spitting image of every preconceived notion I have of the opponents of gay marriage: devoid of rational argument.'

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

Fair enough. So, back to my original question which you have not answered yet: What is a heart for?

Lee said...

> every preconceived notion I have of the opponents of gay marriage: devoid of rational argument.'

A "preconceived notion"? You mean, a prejudice?

Fine, so let me ask a question. Earlier, you wrote:

> "But that's just a minor quibble when all we are talking about is the happiness of millions of gay people in the USA."

So, why does the happiness of millions of gay people require that even more millions of non-gay people recognize their unions as legitimate?

Why is their happiness predicated on how others perceive them?

Singring said...

'Fair enough. So, back to my original question which you have not answered yet: What is a heart for?'

I already answered that question:

I do not know whether or not it has a 'purpose', which is what follows from my position on things having 'purposes' as I just two posts ago reiterated.

The heart has a biological function, though. A 'function' being the action it performs.

It is to pump blood.

You have your answer, Martin. You have not provided any evidence to me to suggest any organ has any 'purpose' and until you do so, I take it that you admit that your personal position on the 'purposes' of the penis, for example, is wholly based on Biblical doctrine or, as you like to call it 'revelation'. That's fine.

It is in fact precisely what I expected and precisely why I think your position is not only untenable, but also morally wrong (in my opinion), because it prevents millions from finding happiness for the sole reason that your favourite fantasy book says they mustn't.

Singring said...

'You mean, a prejudice?'

Yes. It's a well-founded one, though, as you hjave again demonstrated.

'Why is their happiness predicated on how others perceive them?'

Are you telling me you really don't know? It is not a question about how 'others' perceive them, it is about legal status (hospital visitation rights, inheritance and a slew of others) and about EQUALITY.

As long as straight couples can get married, but gay couples only can get something 'other than marriage' we are telling them 'you are not as fully a person as straight people are'. The arguments you make could have been made 50 years ago about interracial marriage. Are you opposed to that too?

Listen - if there was any sound, rational reason to not let gay folks marry, I would be the first to oppose gay marriage. There just isn't. And the very fact that Martin and his cohorts are now reduced to making posts about what the purported 'purposes' of sex organs are (but then seem unable to provide one scrap of evidence for how they know, as is on display here) should tell you all you need to know.

The thing that gets me most about this issue is that its all those who oppose big government, oppose gun regulation, oppose government involvement in education etc. are the FIRST to try and get government to pass laws telling people who can marry and what they can and can't do in their bedrooms (like masturbate, something Martin doesn't like either, apparently).

If you're going to be like that, at least be consistent. Let gay people marry - it harms nobody and it makes them so happy:

http://vimeo.com/3089746

If you want to support families - how come you don't support THESE families?

If your only answer is 'because the Bible tells me so', all I can do is pity you.

Lee said...

> Yes. It's a well-founded one, though, as you hjave again demonstrated.

I feel like I'm discussing something with an NFL wide receiver who has to pump himself up in front of the cameras in order to get into game-mode. Do these little victory dances help?

If it is not about how others perceive them, but only about such things as visitation rights, then it should be sufficient to grant such rights to them and call it something besides marriage. But that doesn't appear to be sufficient to meet their demands. So, if it is not about how others perceive them, then what is it about?

And if it's about "equality", they are already equal. A homosexual man can marry a woman, and in fact many have. It's not about equality, it's about whether to redefine marriage. The definition you wish to change has been the definition for thousands of years: man unites with woman. But now, it is demanded we change it or be called "unreasonable."

> As long as straight couples can get married, but gay couples only can get something 'other than marriage' we are telling them 'you are not as fully a person as straight people are'.

Ahah. So it *is* about how others perceive them. Apparently, the voice of Reason has yet to make her mind up. Is this your final answer?

Regarding the Bible, it is you who are to be pitied, I'm afraid. You opened this thread with:

> "Who made you [Martin] the commissar giving out decrees on body part functions?"

Martin has, in effect, created some sort of arbitrary standard, and you are calling him on it. But then, if I stand on the Bible as the unchanging standard, alas, that is not sufficient either.

Is agreement with your take on morality, then, the unchanging standard? Or is are you, like the rest of us, a fallible human being upon whom no standard ought to depend? Because if that's all it is, then I may be standing on the Bible, but you're standing on nothing.

Singring said...

'If it is not about how others perceive them, but only about such things as visitation rights, then it should be sufficient to grant such rights to them and call it something besides marriage. '

A-Ha! So, Lee - are you telling me that IF Kentucky for example were to allow 'civil unions' between gay couples that are identical in every respect to the legal status of a straight marriage but only differ in name - you would support that? If so, I think that's fantastic and we are in full agreement. I don;t care what it's called - as longa s its identical in quality to a straight marriage. Would you support that?

'A homosexual man can marry a woman, and in fact many have.'

Sorry, that's a false example. A straight person can marry whoever they want - including a gay person. But a gay person cannot marry a gay person. THAT'S inequality.

'The definition you wish to change has been the definition for thousands of years'

So was slavery, racism, subjugation of women...

Come on, Lee - these are stone-age arguments and you should know better. Just because segregation was OK for thousands of years doesn't make it desirable, does it?

Besides, you have so far not provided one single argument for why gay marriage should be prohibited besides quibbling about terms. Is the definition of the word 'marriage' so important to you that you woudl deny millions the happiness they seek simply for semantical reasons? Or is there more to it? If so - what are your reasons?

'So it *is* about how others perceive them.'

NO. I was specifically talking about the legal rights that come with marriage as I pointed out in my first paragraph. Don't distort, please.

'But then, if I stand on the Bible as the unchanging standard, alas, that is not sufficient either.'

As I clearly stated, I am asking for any rational, evidence-based reasons to support opposition to gay marriage. If you ahve any, I'll stand right beside you in opposing it!

If you are going to field the Bible as your unchanging standard - what is your evidence that it is in fact any kind of source for reasonable arguments for or against gay marriage? What is your evidence or reason to propose we should adopt anything the Bible prescribes?

'but you're standing on nothing.'

I agree. All I have is my opininion. But if you ask me, allowing people who love each other to marry is a more moral position than denying them this chance because you think servile and arbitrary obedience to the rules of a fantasy book written 2,000 years ago is the way to go. Or do you also propose stoning people who work on the Sabbat?

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

The difference between my use of "purpose" and your use of "function" is not clear to me, but maybe we can table getting clarity on that for the moment.

Let me ask this: what is your evidence that the heart's "function" is to pump blood?

Singring said...

'Let me ask this: what is your evidence that the heart's "function" is to pump blood?'

Simply because that's what it does. That's waht you can empirically observe and test for in nature. Or do you disagree?

I know where you're trying to take this, so let's save some time here:

The function of the penis is to eject sperm. Because that's what it does.

What I want you to do is give me a coherent, sound reason as to how you know the 'purpose' of the penis is to do this exclusively inside a woman's vagina. Because as we can easily observe and test for in nature, that is not in fact a requirement for the function of the penis to occur.

You constantly ask me questions, Martin, but so far you have not given one coherent reason for anyone to accept your claim that organs have 'inherent purposes', let alone what those supposed purposes ARE?! How can you write a post like the one this discussion is about when you are apparently incapable of giving any sound reason for how you KNOW that men and women are 'for' anything and then to claim on top of that that you KNOW what they are for.

One Brow said...

So, I'll ask the question, does anyone here disagree with these two principles:

1. That natural things (not artificial things) have an intrinsic purpose (or purposes);


I honestly have no idea. My belief is that they do not, but that is based on belief alone, and I can't justify that statement. So, I am willing to discuss natural purposes as if they might exist. What I can say about them is, when people assign pruposes to natural things, and there are differnet selections that seem reasonable, they seem to do so based on arbitrary criteria.

So, if the heart has a purpose, the only purpose I see for it is pumping blood. I agree with that idea, subject to the caveat that my limited imagination is also in play. However, for sexual relations, I see two purposes, both of which are present in our species, each of which is absent in some species while the other is present. Thus, my question about how you can choose to base a law on one purpose and not the other.

2. That the purpose of a part of any whole is subservient (and answerable) to the purpose of the whole of which it is a part.

This is not true even for things I design, where often I intend parts to serve purposes that do not enhance the purpose of the whole, but rather enhance something disconnected. I don't see why it would have to be true of whatever natural purposes might exist.

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

You just gave me what amounts to a purpose for a heart. At least I can't distinguish that what I mean by "purpose" from what you mean by "function."

You say the "function" of the heart is to pump blood and you say your evidence for that fact is that that's what it does.

I say the "purpose" of the male genitals is to contribute to teh procreative process for the very same reason: because that's what it does.

My reason is the same as yours, but you will accept it when you use it, and reject it when I use it.

This seems rather inconsistent to me.

Singring said...

'I say the "purpose" of the male genitals is to contribute to the procreative process for the very same reason: because that's what it does.'

I agree 100%. But the operative word here is that they CONTRIBUTE.

C.O.N.T.R.I.B.U.T.E.

The penis does not procreate on its own as you claimed earlier.

If you want to use the terms 'purpose' and 'function' interchangeably, then go ahead! I have no problems with that! But then be precise:

The penis' function is to eject sperm. No more, no less.

Yes - in doing so it may (and often does) CONTRIBUTE to procreation - but procreation is not a necessary consequence of ejaculation, now is it?

So I really wish you would start being consistent in your terminology and language and for once give me a reason why the penis contributing to procreation is its ONLY purpose or function.

It has a biological function - the ejection of sperm (and urination). This is my question and unless you give me an answer your 'argument' stands exposed for what it is - vapant religious dogmatism:

How do you know where the penis is allowed to ejaculate and where it is not?

How. Do. You. Know?

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

How do you know where the heart is allowed to send blood?

How. Do. You. Know?

Martin Cothran said...

Surely it isn't vapant scientistic dogmatism.

Singring said...

Pathetic, Martin.

Pathetic.

No arguments to support your claims, no defense of any of your preposterous assertions, instead I get yet another ridiculous question.

A question that is not even accurately phrased and even so is trivial to answer:

'How do you know where the heart is allowed to send blood?'

1.) I never claimed the heart is allowed to pump blood to one place rather than another.

2.) The heart pumps blood, that is its function.

3.) The blood is contained in vessels and moves through them once pumped. The function of the vessels is to contain the blood and direct ot around the body. Again, we can observe this and test for it scientifically. Where those vessels are located is regukated by genetics and developmental biology and in some cases surgery.

At this stage I just give up on ever getting a rational response from you, Martin.

As with all other opponents of gay marriage, you stand devoid of rational argument and have revealed that your sole problem with gay marriage is a religious one.

What a sad world we live in if 2,000 year old fairy tales make some people deny others their human rights and happiness.

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

I think part of the problem here is the confusion between wholes and parts again, and I had a part in leading you into the confusion by discussing an aspect of the part that really belongs to the whole.

I think you are correct in saying that (at least the immediate function) of the male genital organ is to, well, what you said.

When I talk about procreation, I should really not ascribe it to the organ, but to the whole of which the organ is a part, which is the person himself.

In which case the issue is taken out of the context of the particular organ (where you seem to want to discuss it) and placed back in the context of the whole.

I apologize for allowing you to discuss what is an aspect of the whole as if it were an aspect of the part unchallenged.

What the male organ is used for is not part of the function of the male organ, but a function of the person who is using it, in which case the question becomes what the person should use the organ for, not what the function of the organ itself is.

But that doesn't fundamentally change the nature of the question, which is for a person. And it doesn't change the heart analogy. The function of the heart is to pump blood because that's what it does. Likewise, the function (I would say "purpose") of the use of the organ (as part of a person) is to procreate because that's what it does.

I hope that clarifies my position, one which I'm sure you still have a problem with.

I am ready once again to receive fire.

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

Maybe you would care to point out where I made appeal to anything specifically religious on this thread. I don't foreclose doing that at some point, but I am wondering where you think I did this.

I assume you have a reason for saying this, I mean, you being such a rational person and all.

Martin Cothran said...

It's also ironic that you accuse me of being irrational when I used exactly the same argument for my claim about the use of the male genital organ as you used for the heart.

Singring said...

Thanks Martin - you seem much more rational when you are actually articulate.

However, your argument still is not sound. Here's why:

'What the male organ is used for is not part of the function of the male organ, but a function of the person who is using it, in which case the question becomes what the person should use the organ for, not what the function of the organ itself is.'

As it seems to me you have conceded the point that there is no reason to think that there is any rule or imperative for the penis to ejaculate in any particular place. Thank you. Now on to the bigger picture as you have laid it out:

This is a proposition we can rationally discuss. If the question is:

'what the person should use the organ for'

then we first have to agree that there is some kind of 'rule' or 'imperative' as to how persons should use their genitals. You cannot argue that there is an 'inherent purpose' to the genitals which is to exclusively couple with those of the opposite sex for the simple fact that daily observation and scientific testing easily demonstrates that that is not the only thing a human person or most other organsims actually do with our genitals, even in a sexual context.

So the only aproach you are able to take to show that male and female genitals are exclusively 'for' something or 'intended' for something is to argue to some higher moral or biological rule that applies.

Singring said...

Let's take them in turn:

1.) Biological

A person using their genitals in ways not connected with the opposite sex does not limit, inhibit or in any other way reduce his or her ability to procreate. For example, when a man has sex with another man this does not mean he cannot procreate thereafter. Therefore, there is no clear Biological rule we cna invoke.

2.) Moral

To illustrate why this approach fails, let's talk about appendages in general: We, as a society, regulate what people can do with their appendages. You can kick a beer can with your foot, but you can't kick a pensioner. Why the distinction? One causes harm to someone, the other doesn't (except if you kicked the can at the pensioner). So the social principle for allowing the use of an appendage in one way or another depends on the harm it could or will create to other members of society.

What harm does a gay man do to anybody when he uses his penis to have sex with another man in a consensual arrangement?

If you accept that we should regulate the use of appendages based on the harm the action creates to others, then you must demonstarte the harm done by the gay person to someone else in this case to justify prohibiting his having sex and - ultimately - entering in a marriage analogous to a straight couple.

If you do NOT accept how our society regulates the use of appendages then tell me the reasons why you do not accept them (in this case specifically) and what source you draw upon to claim either

a) that the a gay man using his penis in this way does in fact cause harm in some other sense (for example by offending some higher power)

or

b) that there is simply some arbitrary rule that prohibits gay marriage.

These sources should be logically and rationally sound and supported by empirical evidence.

Singring said...

'It's also ironic that you accuse me of being irrational when I used exactly the same argument for my claim about the use of the male genital organ as you used for the heart.'

This is shocking, Martin, especially for someone why has written textbooks on logic.

Your argument for purpose of the penis was false for the simple reason that falsely defined its functionas you even admitted later on.

The penis ejects sperm. It does not procreate. It is therefore improper to leap from this function to the claim that it may only do so inside a woman.

If you want to claim that, you have to show that there's a necessary link (i.e. that the penis only ejaculates when in a woman).

Good luck with that...

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

When I ask you how you know what the function of an organ is, you say, "what it does." Then when I use the same argument for another organ, or for how that organ should be used by a person, you protest, saying that it is used for many things other than the thing I say it should be used for.

But this argument works against the things you use the argument for as well. The heart does a lot of things other than pump blood. It gets diseases that interfere with its pumping of blood, and sometimes it fails altogether.

We don't say these things are proper functions of the heart. We say they are deviations from its proper function. We say one heart is "good" and another "bad" and what we mean is that one is serving its proper function and the other is not, even though both are doing something--one thing it is supposed to do and the other the thing it is not supposed to do.

But the fact that one does the thing it is not supposed to do is no argument against saying the thing doesn't have another thing it is supposed to do.

But this is exactly what you are doing with human beings: you argue that because some human beings do different things with particular organs, you cannot therefore say that there is any proper thing they should do with them.

Why do you think this works with the organ your concerned about, but not with other organs? Why the double standard?

In fact, however, you do say they have a proper function. You've said it several times. You say that the use of the organ that makes them happy is the proper use of the organ.

But you have offered no reason for this position, even though you have demanded I give one for mine.

Singring said...

Martin - I honestly can't believe you actually wrote that latest post. It is of such poor quality I have a hard time figuring out where to begin:

'The heart does a lot of things other than pump blood. It gets diseases that interfere with its pumping of blood, and sometimes it fails altogether. '

So does the penis. Erectile disfunction etc. This affects its function. A penis that does not ejaculate in a woman does NOT affect its function, as I have shown before - in fact there are many mdical studies that show that masturbation for example ENHANCE its functioning.

Your objection in this case is of such infantile quality it beggars belief! IF you honestly want to make that argument, then please give me some evidence suggestiong that men having sex with men affects their ability to procreate adversely.

'But the fact that one does the thing it is not supposed to do'

What is it with your sloppy use of language? 'Supposed to' implies a purpose, which so far you have failed to support and have even conceded does not in fact exist for the penis. 'The fact that it affects its functioning negatively' would be a more accurate wording.

'Why do you think this works with the organ your concerned about, but not with other organs? Why the double standard?'

1.) The heart is not directly subject to human will (at least not without intensive training). It is a completely false analogy in many ways:

a) to equate the heart with an appendage we have conscious control over (as you have argued yourself, for crying out loud!). This kind of sophistry is embarassing, Martin.

b) the ability of a human to 'do' amything with his or her heart is constrained by the location of the heart within the body - you simply can't MAKE a heart kick a ball - but you CAN make a leg kick a ball. That's a qualitative difference! It is simply insane to compare the two in the context of the ability and thus responsibility of a person to do certain things with them (as you INSIST we do, remember)?!

Show me a person who can DO anything with their heart beyond pumping blood (whether badly or well is not the issue) and I will concede the point. There are dozens of things you can do with a penis while still preserving its function of ejecting sperm! I honestly can't believe you don't see the difference.

'You say that the use of the organ that makes them happy is the proper use of the organ.'

I NEVER said that. I said that UNLESS you have a rational reason for why any particular use of an organ is not permissible due to biological or moral reasons, you have NO justification for prohibiting the use of an organ in that way.

So...I'll have to ask you again because you just keep refusing to answer any of my challenges:

What rational reason do you have to prohibit gay men from using their penis for having sex with anotehr man?

Is it a biological reason?

It can't be because I have shown that having gay sex does not adversely affect the function of the penis!

Is it a moral reason?

If you want to claim this, then you must show that two gay men having consensual sex harms someone OR that there is some other rule for why they may not have sex.

SO WHAT IS THAT REASON?

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

Maybe I should make clear to you where I was headed in this analogy (an admittedly imperfect on, but then, it is the nature of analogy to be imperfect, otherwise it wouldn't be analogous, but univocal). My analogy is between the human person, who I maintain has an intrinsic purpose or "function." And that the person, just like the heart or any other thing with a function, can not only function but malfunction.

You say this cannot be the case because when the heart malfunctions it is rendered less able to perform its regular function, whereas if one considers a man having sex with another man it does not render him less able to have sex with a woman. You conveniently leave the issue off at simply having sex with another woman. That's not the analogy I was headed toward drawing. My analogy was not between a blood pumping heart and a heart that does not do that on one side and a man having sex with a man and a man having sex with a woman on the other. My analogy is between a blood pumping heart and a heart that does not do that on one side and a man having sex with a man and a man only having sex with a woman in a committed, faithful marriage on the other.

If you think that men having sex with other men does not detract from a life in which sex is restricted to a monogamous, faithful heterosexual marriage, then I guess we have other problems in this discussion.

Of course, you could argue that men were not made with such a purpose, but that is not a problem with the analogy.

And if you argue that there is no evidence that men and women were made for each other in this way, and argue that there is no evidence for this, I would simply point to the whole history of humanity, where the practice of restrictions on sexual behavior that exclude homosexuality and that limit marriage in manifold ways is the clear and unarguable norm. It was you, after all, who argued that we know the function of the heart was in fact its function because "that's what it does."

Yes, it does that, for the most part. And that what human beings do, for the most part.

The assumption that things have a purpose--that they are "for" something--is ubiquitous in human speech--including scientific discourse. Basically, everyone talks this way--and thinks this way, at least until someone points out that their speech and their stated beliefs about final causation are at odds.

Singring said...

'My analogy is between the human person, who I maintain has an intrinsic purpose or "function."'

You indeed do a lot of maintaining - but once again you did not answer my challenge and gave not a shred of sound evidence or argument to support the idea that a human person HAS an 'intrinsic purpose' or 'function'. You simply refuse to give it, which make everything you say null and void as long as this condition isn;t met. I am just as justified in saying that the 'purpose' of humans is to be happy and therefore gay people should be able to marry each other. I can;t possibly support that claim, so it's void - just as yours is right now.

'My analogy is between a blood pumping heart and a heart that does not do that on one side and a man having sex with a man and a man only having sex with a woman in a committed, faithful marriage on the other.'

What about a man having sex with a man in a committed, faithful marriage? Oh, right - that's verboten! Can you not see the circular reasoning you are using here???

'Gay marriage is wrong!'

Why?

'Because that's not the purpose of human beings!'

Why?

'Because gay sex is not the purpose
of the genitals!'

Why?

'Because human beings have a purpose and the use of genitals fall within the context that purpose!'

What is the purpose of genitals in the context of a human being then?

'To have sex in a committed, fathful marriage!'

Then let's allow gay people to get married so they can fulfill the purpose of their genitals!

'Nope!'

Why?

'BECAUSE GAY MARRIAGE IS WRONG! PERIOD!'

I can quote you on every one of those propositions you have made.

I honestly can't fathom how an author of books on logic can disregard it so fundamentally time and again.

Singring said...

'If you think that men having sex with other men does not detract from a life in which sex is restricted to a monogamous, faithful heterosexual marriage, then I guess we have other problems in this discussion.'

Indeed we do have a problem because time and time again I have implored you to give me a rational reason who in society is harmed by gay people marrying each other?

WHO?

Are you honestly telling me that you are part of that crackpot fringe that believes homosexuality is a choice?! And that if gay marriage is allowed, straight men will suddenly turn gay and start leaving their wives?

Honestly?

'I would simply point to the whole history of humanity, where the practice of restrictions on sexual behavior that exclude homosexuality and that limit marriage in manifold ways is the clear and unarguable norm.'

So was slavery until 200 years ago (and it still is in parts of the world today!). Did that make it right?

Women were not allowed to vote until 100 years ago, all over the world. Did that make it right?

Is this seriously the level of argument you are presenting here?
Do you not feel the immense weight of irony that you, who was just about to lecture me on the insufficience of my moral relativism just a few posts ago are now telling me that historical consensus should dictate what we do and do not deem as moral and right?

It's incredible! It's an about-face of immense proportions!

'It was you, after all, who argued that we know the function of the heart was in fact its function because "that's what it does."'

If you lie one more time I'm going to blow a gasket. Did I NOT say that we can observe this and TEST for it scientifically???

'The assumption that things have a purpose--that they are "for" something--is ubiquitous in human speech'

THAT is your argument for things having purposes???

Because its a term that's 'ubiquitous in human speech'.

That strikes me speechless.

'Basically, everyone talks this way--and thinks this way, at least until someone points out that their speech and their stated beliefs about final causation are at odds.'

I haven;t talked this way and I have been very clear about my views on final causation.

Martin - you can hold any position you want on gay marriage. But you cannot make up bogus reasons for why your positions are reasonable, like the one you have presented here.

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

Are you honestly telling me that you are part of that crackpot fringe that believes homosexuality is a choice?!

Crackpot fringe? This coming from someone who gets on my blog and champions a view of marriage that in the context of history is practically unknown, who thinks that bodily organs are not for anything, and who talks about he benefits of masturbation?

Not only does this argument constitute a clear example of an ad populum appeal (with not a shred of scientific evidence cited), but it betrays a clear confusion between political positions, which is what this claim really amounts to, and actual science.

Are you aware that not only is view scientifically controversial but it isn't even universally accepted in the gay community itself, where there is strong opposition to it?

This is a bunch of people who, out of one side of their mouths talks about how gender is socially constructed, and out of the other that their homosexuality is biologically determined. If you have a hard time seeing their irony of that, I suggest thinking about a little further.

And you apparently didn't notice that what you argue here is that these people are homosexual by innate nature--that they are oriented (read "purposed toward") being gay. This is a strange thing for a person who professes to believe that nothing has an intrinsic purpose (and by inference intrinsic nature) to say.

But it won't be the first time you have contradicted yourself.

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

What about a man having sex with a man in a committed, faithful marriage? Oh, right - that's verboten!

Men cannot marry men. The very definition of the word excludes it. You can change the meaning of the word, but then it wouldn't be the same word, would it?

Again, the entire history of human culture is against it--with the exception of a few modern liberals.

A sort of "crackpot fringe" you might say.

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

Do you not feel the immense weight of irony that you, who was just about to lecture me on the insufficience of my moral relativism just a few posts ago are now telling me that historical consensus should dictate what we do and do not deem as moral and right?

The irony I feel is for someone to make this argument who, when I asked how he knew that the function of the heart was, answered, "Simply because that's what it does."

The irony I feels is when someone uses this argument for his own position, but then when someone else says that the function of humans is to do what they, in fact, do, responds that it's a fallacy.

That's the irony I feel.

Lee said...

> ...are you telling me that IF Kentucky for example were to allow 'civil unions' between gay couples that are identical in every respect to the legal status of a straight marriage but only differ in name - you would support that?

Sort of. Workaday disadvantages suffered by gays ought to be cleared in favor of the gays. But I favor the piecemeal approach. I don't see the need for a special government recognition of gay partner status. And if there was, I would favor that over calling it marriage.

> I don;t care what it's called - as longa s its identical in quality to a straight marriage.

Not if it requires people do not believe it to be a legitimate marriage-like relationship to recognize it as such.

But gays in fact do care whether it's called marriage. So even if it was okay with me, it is not okay with them.

> But a gay person cannot marry a gay person. THAT'S inequality.

There are all sorts of inequalities in the world, and of many different types. The question is whether it's an inequality we should feel obliged to do something about. If there is such an obligation, it is not one being forced upon me by my religion, nor by the humanistic texts, nor by the great documents of American freedom, nor by the other standards and norms of human history.

I see gay marriage as a notion trying hard to make the grade as a timeless principle. Problem is, only very recently has it even been an issue at all. If recorded human history were reduced to 24 hours, then the length of time this issue has even been an issue would be, what, less than five minutes before midnight? Not exactly timeless.

So if gays truly don't need society's blessing for their own happiness, let's give them society's tolerance and call it a day.

Lee said...

>> 'The definition you wish to change has been the definition for thousands of years'

> So was slavery, racism, subjugation of women...

That's a good point. No, an institution is not afforded a free pass just because it's an institution. But it is afforded the benefit of the doubt, and it does put the burden of proof on those who would change it.

> Come on, Lee - these are stone-age arguments and you should know better.

Come on, Singring - you're using a question-begging epithet and you should know better. If you mean mine is an old argument, you're right. If you mean it's wrong because it's old, you're wrong.

> Just because segregation was OK for thousands of years doesn't make it desirable, does it?

Oppression of the blacks in the South was either wrong in some absolute sense, or it wasn't wrong at all. I say it was wrong, but only because I believe there is an objective standard which cannot easily be explained without God.

But the emancipation of blacks, as justified as it was, serves as a warning: it had unbelievably high costs for our society. Fine, it was worth it, and we had it coming. But let's make sure, when we go tearing down any institution, that it is indeed worth it. There simply is no way to compare what blacks went through to what gays go through today.

In fact, there may come a day soon when gays cherish the memory of a Christian society. What will become of them when America has gone Islamic? Fortunately, we have a sneak preview in Europe, which is already well on its way. Film critic Bruce Brawer, a gay man, decrying the intolerance of Americans toward gays, moved to Europe and found he had jumped from a frying pan set to 'warm' into a fire. The young Muslim men -- excuse me, in our press, that's "youths" -- routinely beat up gays. No problem with the Europeans; they are liberal, warm, open, tolerant folks. I almost forgot to say, soon to be extinct. A replacement rate of 1.2 births per couple isn't going to win the future against the Islamic tide. Perhaps extinction is the result of devaluing marriage...? Anyhow, it seems to me that gays in America should be singing, "Onward Christian Soldiers." The worst thing they'll get from a Presbyterian is a dirty look.

Lee said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lee said...

>> 'So it *is* about how others perceive them.'

> NO. I was specifically talking about the legal rights that come with marriage as I pointed out in my first paragraph. Don't distort, please.

Nice dodge. But you wrote:

> "As long as straight couples can get married, but gay couples only can get something 'other than marriage' we are telling them 'you are not as fully a person as straight people are'."

Why should it matter to gays what we tell them? Unless the real issue is how others perceive them, that is.

And by the way, you said not to distort, so that means you too: no one is saying they're not fully 'a person'; only that their relationships are not fully marriage.

> As I clearly stated, I am asking for any rational, evidence-based reasons to support opposition to gay marriage.

You keep invoking rationality and evidence as standards, though it doesn't always work in your favor. You cannot prove, for example, that endorsing gay marriage is not a dangerous path for society, and since it is unprecedented, there is no evidence.

But there is a bigger issue, which wouldn't be an issue except that you pooh-poohed the Bible. I accept rationality and evidence as authoritative only because I believe it's a reflection of God's mind. If you don't believe in God, on the other hand, you have the task of explaining why rationality has any existence at all apart from brain chemistry, and why should chemicals have the final say on any discussion?

Either there is an unchanging standard, or there is effectively no standard. Either way, gay marriage loses. If the unchanging standard exists, you can argue the issue in terms of God's truth. If it doesn't, it's just your preferences against mine.

>I agree. All I have is my opininion. But if you ask me, allowing people who love each other to marry is a more moral position than denying them this chance because you think servile and arbitrary obedience to the rules of a fantasy book written 2,000 years ago is the way to go.

In 2000 more years that fantasy book will still be here and will still be true, or not. Either way, your brain chemicals and mine will be long gone, so I know not to look there for timeless truth.

Nobody is telling gays they can't love each other, but it isn't loving them to pretend that their lifestyle is doing them any good; it's humoring them, not loving them.

Martin Cothran said...

Lee,

You notice that Singring, who professes to dislike illogical arguments (especially when you use the very illogical arguments he has used against his own position), will argue that your arguments are illogical because they're from the "stone age," as if the mere age of an argument renders it invalid?

Singring said...

'and who talks about he benefits of masturbation?'

Within two minutes I was able to find the following scientific articles vie scholar.google.com:

http://matematicas.unex.es/~mvelasco/Estadistica%20Computacional/Regresion_Lineal/Baker_Bellis.pdf
http://matematicas.unex.es/~mvelasco/Estadistica%20Computacional/Regresion_Lineal/Baker_Bellis.pdf
http://www.grin.com/e-book/107173/masturbation-normal-or-abnormal-leisure
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a771133732

and from the Journal of RELIGION and health:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/k46w20j27l586k36/

There were dozens mor, but you get the picture.

Thumping your chest with pride in your scientific ignorance is simply embarassing, Martin, but that's just what i expected from you.

'This is a bunch of people who, out of one side of their mouths talks about how gender is socially constructed, and out of the other that their homosexuality is biologically determined.'

I'm not claiming one or the other is the only factor! When did I??? Currently, the evidence suggests it could be a bit of both - but what it definitely ISN'T is a 'choice'!

When did you 'choose' to be 'straight', Martin? In high school? At college?

'This is a strange thing for a person who professes to believe that nothing has an intrinsic purpose (and by inference intrinsic nature) to say.'

Again you are conflating terms in a way that suggests you don't even have a rudimentary understanding of the English language. Defining the 'quality' of person (black hair, brown eyes, male or female, straight or gay) does in no way imply a 'purpose' that arises from that quality. Does black hair imply a 'prpose'? NO. Does being gay imply a purpose? NO.

Anyway - the fact that you actually think homosexuality is a choice has smashed the last shreds of respect I had for you Martin.

Singring said...

'Men cannot marry men. The very definition of the word excludes it.'

I assume your books on 'logic' not only lack a chapter on circular reasoning, but also on 'begging the question' then??? LOL.

'Again, the entire history of human culture is against it--with the exception of a few modern liberals.'

Bravo, Martin! Bravo! This is a statement that could have been mad in exactly th same way by a Southern slave-owner to justofy his ownership of slaves 200 years ago. I would be embarassed by using such shoddy arguments, you seem to wear them as a badge of honour.

'when I asked how he knew that the function of the heart was, answered, "Simply because that's what it does."'

Clear LIE.

This is what I said:

'Simply because that's what it does. That's what you can empirically observe and test for in nature. '

We can TEST is. That's how we know. We can TEST it by stopping the heart of a mouse in the lab and then observing whether or not the blood ceases to move through teh vessels.

Can YOU give me a test or observation that would prove that the penis is only intended to ejaculate inside a woman and nowhere else?

Singring said...

'Sort of.'

So there IS more. Just like I thought.

'I don't see the need for a special government recognition of gay partner status. '

Why not? Do you not think a gay woman should be allowed to have visitation rights to see her partner of 20 years in a hospital when she's suffered a heart attack? Do you not think she should have automatic access to at least some of the inheritance as she would in a normal 'marriage' of 20 years. hould she not get medical benefits on a par with marrid couples?

Why not?

'Not if it requires people do not believe it to be a legitimate marriage-like relationship to recognize it as such.'

A-ha. So requiring racists to recognize interracial marriage is wrong, too? Do you realize who you are sounding like when you say things like this?

'So even if it was okay with me, it is not okay with them.'

Yeah - THAT'S what's preventing gay marriage. Those gays insisting on the term used to describe it.

'Problem is, only very recently has it even been an issue at all. If recorded human history were reduced to 24 hours, then the length of time this issue has even been an issue would be, what, less than five minutes before midnight? Not exactly timeless.'

The EXACT same thing could be said about female suffrage, slavery, racism, you name it! Is THAT your standard for making moral and legal decisions??? 'Well, grampa thought it was fine, so I think it's just fine, too!'. This is the most ifantile justification for anything - just because everyone else is doing it, you think its fine to do it, too. That's a sad thing to say.

'So if gays truly don't need society's blessing for their own happiness'

It's not about 'blessings', its about EQUAL RIGHTS. Keep misrepresenting the issue if that makes you feel better.

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

I realize you have a lot of emotions wrapped up in this debate (despite all your talk about logic), and I don't mean to be insensitive, but I really don't care what your feelings our toward me or what your level of respect is for me, I am simply interested in the issue we are discussing.

I debate on this blog because I enjoy thinking out loud about these issues and contending for what I think the truth is. It's my own personal form of amusement.

I would suggest that you would enjoy this whole experience a lot better if you didn't take everything so personally.

Just a suggestion.

Singring said...

I'm not taking things personally at all. I enjoy debate as much as you, I just get somewhat exasperated when someone as educated as you, with a digree in philosophy to his name and author of books on logic is reduced to fielding 'gays can't marry because that's not the definition of the word' and 'it's tradition!' as his arguments.

But that's just me.

Since you do not even attempt to further defend your position in your latest post I must assume that we leave this issue unresolved. Fine. I'm happy with the record as it stands and have nothing much to add - unless you present some kind of argument to support your claims. that's something we can discuss.

Say what you like, but I just get awfully upset when I read people's pontifications about why we can't let those gays marry and when they get called on their rhetoric, they resort to pure armwaiving and stubborn assertion as you did in your last couple of posts on the topic.

If you were simply to come out and say:

'Listen folks, I oppose gay marriage just because. I don;t like it, I don;t want it, I just oppose it'

I wouldn't have much of a problem at all. But that's not what you do. You make quite specific claims as to why your reasons to oppose gay marriage are rationally justified, but when called out to elaborate your argument descends into the pits of hilarity we have witnessed here.

All I'm asking for is a little intellectual honesty, which is not too much to ask from a man as educated as you.

Lee said...

> Do you not think a gay woman should be allowed to have visitation rights...

Singring, those issues are red herrings. The real goal of gay rights activists is for official and public recognition of gay marriage as normal, wholesome and mainstream. If the little solvable problems were all solved, that wouldn't end the crusade. They want the marriage certificate.

Today, you and others have embraced the notion of justice in the form of gay marriage. A couple of generations ago, gays were persecuted, often even by Christians. Who knows where it will be in a couple more generations? Justice that depends on man's good opinion is here today and gone tomorrow. You scoff at the Bible as the single standard, but the truth is there are Biblical principles for treating women and slaves well. The word of God has a way of working itself into men's consciences and causing sin to come to a head.

Today, you and others have embraced the notion of justice in the form of gay marriage. But you offer nothing more than your opinion as a standard. That, and your espoused devotion to rationality, an odd one for someone who doesn't believe in God. Or is it just the Bible you're against? Anyhow, interesting that rationality has been taking it on the chin even in the halls of philosophical academia for more than a century. That's what happens when God is rejected as the explanation. Philosophers have tried for centuries to derive reason and morality starting with man as the foundation, and mostly have wound up eschewing reason altogether. Glad to hear reason still has its vocal champions, such as yourself. I too am a fan. Only it makes sense when I do so: I believe in a God that created reason and morals. Good luck finding an eternal principle based on your personal opinion.

Unfortunately, women and slaves aren't the same as gays. There is nothing in the Bible to indicate that being a woman or a slave is a moral failing -- unlike homosexuality, for which such indications are emphatically present. If you believe in Paul's authority as an apostle of Christ, you are compelled to take seriously his condemnations of immorality. (If you think he singles out homosexuality, though, think again.)

Lee said...

In a democratic republic such as ours, the rights of Christians and non-Christians are, or should be, equally important. Slowly but surely, the legal barriers to the gay lifestyle have all but disappeared. Christians can no longer require gays to live in a manner that they approve of. But that's not what this issue is about. The issue is about requiring society as a whole, including Christians, to grant approval to gay relationships. Approval is a different thing than tolerance, and that's where the line is drawn.

If gays don't need Christian approval (as you suggested, and then didn't), then why can't they just be happy with Christian tolerance?

I know the answer. Maybe you do too. Liberals love to destroy institutions. They live for it. Marriage is just another notch in the holster. Some institutions have needed to come down and come down hard, no question. In case of slavery or Jim Crow, break glass and use liberals liberally. But not all institutions are bad, and many of them are essential to society in ways we can't begin to quantify.

I've met a few liberal computer programmers in my line of work, but most of the ones I have worked with are conservative. In fact, being a programmer myself, it makes me wonder how anyone can be a programmer and not be a conservative. Programming teaches you a lot about life by rubbing your nose in a number of important concepts. The limits of human reason. The fragility of complex systems. The difference between desirable and possible. You can change one line of code and have it break the entire system in unpredictable ways. The scary part is that no one person understands all there is to know about these systems. A lot of what passes for knowledge is wishful thinking. I see this every day.

Society is a complex system, too. We conservatives have our problems. We can be callous. I'm sure you can name others. But if there was one thing I would change about liberals, it's their willingness to breeze into the configured code of society and start hacking on it without a care in the world. Hope and change and all that. The change lives on when the hope is long gone. That's the problem. Liberals need to appreciate what we already have accomplished and to realize and respect how fragile the system is, and what they risk when they figure wrongly.

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

It is a little difficult to have an argument with someone who professes that the definitions of key terms in the debate are unimportant. It is also a little ironic that someone who claims to have such a high regard for logic would say such a thing, since the definition of words--particularly the matter of retaining the particular meaning of a word unchanged--is one of the first lessons you learn in logic.

The problem of equivocation is the most fundamental way in which an argument can go wrong, and yet you--in the name of being rational--seem to think you can do it with impunity.

The word "marriage" has had the meaning of a monogamous, heterosexual relationship for millenia. It has meant that and that only in the law and in the culture. The meaning of words is not only important in logic: it is absolutely critical in law, and is a recognized way of argumentation in the law to appeal to the meaning of words.

In fact tradition, which you seem to hold in such low regard, is frequently and effectively used in legal argumentation. If you don't know that, then you must never have read a case.

In fact the law is probably the most tradition-bound profession in existence. In fact, the authority of case laws is nothing but an appeal to tradition.

The idea that we can ignore the established meaning of words and ignore the previous opinions of courts (which is what you have to do if you reject tradition) and instead replace them with the latest intellectual fashions may strike you as progressive, but I wouldn't claim the authority of logic and law to support it.

Lee said...

> You notice that Singring, who professes to dislike illogical arguments (especially when you use the very illogical arguments he has used against his own position), will argue that your arguments are illogical because they're from the "stone age," as if the mere age of an argument renders it invalid?

Yes, I did notice, and remarked on it. Well, I'm sure I've done at least as badly at times. I'm certainly not an expert at formal or informal logic, just an interested amateur. Problem is, the subject, like many others discussed on your blog, is too important to just leave it to the experts.

As C.S. Lewis said, it's difficult to walk with Reason. But we have to try.

Lee said...

But somehow, Martin, I garnered the distinct notion that Singring is a she. Something about the style of argument. Just an impression.

Singring said...

Lee:

I read your little tirade with interest. The way you tacitly accept slavery as okay because - hey 'The Bible tells us to treat slaves well' (oh yeah -like how to beat them mildly). The way you assert the Bible as a standard without giving one shred of evidence that it in fact is any standard at all is the usual modus operandi. You might as well have argued that the Qu'ran is the standard - it is supported by just as much evidence (namely zero). Or do you have any?

Your posts also reek of the aranoia of a conservative man who is terrified of the gay stormtroopers who are lurking around every corner, ready to prosecute Christians, force him to have gay sex and turn America into a hedonistic playground for Satan.

Let's look at some facts:

'since it is unprecedented, there is no evidence.'

I live in Europe. We have gay marriage and have ahd gay marriage for many years in most countries, in some cases even ministered by churches, and guess what? We lead the US in almost every standard of living.

Huh...

I told you before, Lee - reality has a liberal bias

'But you offer nothing more than your opinion as a standard. '

I never claimed anything more! But at least my opinion is backed up by rational reasons and evidence whereas you are now reduced to simply thumping the Bible.

'Only it makes sense when I do so: I believe in a God that created reason and morals. Good luck finding an eternal principle based on your personal opinion.'

Who ever said we need an 'eternal principle' to base reason on? Reason is based on logic, which I have argued consistently is a construct of our minds, a model by which we evaluate reality and make decisions. It isn;t 'eternal' at all - quantum theory for example contradicts it.

Do keep up with reality Lee.

'There is nothing in the Bible to indicate that being a woman or a slave is a moral failing'

LOL. Original sin, Lee: being BORN is a moral failing according to your 'good book'.

'Liberals need to appreciate what we already have accomplished and to realize and respect how fragile the system is, and what they risk when they figure wrongly.'

Fearmongering. That's all you have left. These exact same arguments were used 50 and 200 years ago. Sad.

Singring said...

'But somehow, Martin, I garnered the distinct notion that Singring is a she. Something about the style of argument. Just an impression.'

LOL!!!

EPIC FAIL. Just epic. A psychologist would have a field day with you, Lee.

Singring said...

'It is a little difficult to have an argument with someone who professes that the definitions of key terms in the debate are unimportant.'

Oh - you mean like someone who first argues all organs have an 'intrinsic purpose', then says 'Nonono, I actually meant a purpose in the context of the person'? Right, I'll keep that in mind.

'The problem of equivocation is the most fundamental way in which an argument can go wrong, and yet you--in the name of being rational--seem to think you can do it with impunity.'

M-hm. Right, Martin, because I'VE been the one here who's been comparing a heart to a penis. I'VE been the one who's claimed that a penis 'procreates'. I'VE been the one who has equivocated a heart getting a disease to a marriage between gay men. I'VE been the one who euqivocates.

You just couldn't make this stuff up, it's classic stuff. From an author of textbooks. On logic.

Incredible.

'The word "marriage" has had the meaning of a monogamous, heterosexual relationship for millenia.'

I agree. I'm not dismissing or arguing against that.

What I AM criticizing is your use of this fact as an argument for why gay people can't marry each other!

You say: 'Gay marriage is wrong!'

I say: 'How so!'

You say: 'Because that isn't the definition of the word!'

It is a truly bizarre and profoundly infantile argument to make and it must be obvious to you that this is the most fundamental logical fallacy anyone could make. You simply claim X can't do Y because X is X and Y is Y. Period. This is embrassing Martin.

I wonder what the publisher of your text books wuld think if they knew you are reduced to making these kinds of pathetic excuses for an argument?

'In fact tradition, which you seem to hold in such low regard, is frequently and effectively used in legal argumentation.'

Again - I never said otherwise! I am sinply saying that tradition is not a sufficient or even rational reason to bring into a civil rights discussion. Would you say that the tradition of racism was a sufficient or rational argument in support of the segregationists back in the 60s? Would you?

'The idea that we can ignore the established meaning of words'

When did I ever say that? I never disputed the meaning of the word 'marriage' as it is - I dispute the use of thsi meaning as an argument to prevent a slight change of its meaning (i.e. to include gay couples).

50 years ago, the word marriage - by tradition - was defined as a man and a woman of the same race...so was it irrtional and wrong to change that? Was it irrational and wrong to allow interracial marriage?

Let's see what your answer is, Martin.

Keep digging that hole.

Lee said...

> I read your little tirade with interest. The way you tacitly accept slavery as okay because - hey 'The Bible tells us to treat slaves well' (oh yeah -like how to beat them mildly).

"Tirade"? Singring, where did you learn that posting a question-begging epithet on something is a rational argument?

Slavery in Biblical times was not the same institution it was in more modern times. For one thing, a man could be sold into slavery for failure to pay his debts. I'm not really sure we can claim we've abolished it, at least not in some states. If you're a divorced man who owes child support, you can be imprisoned and forced to work in the prison shops.

Also in many cultures, slaves had a great deal more freedom than in the American South. Something else that made slavery so bad in the West is that we turned predatory on a stone-age culture whose members could not defend themselves, effectively subjugating and kidnapping them into slavery. Not a proud moment for Western civilization.

But again, there are Biblical principles against treating our fellow men so poorly. In fact, probably the single biggest reason why slavery is a bad thing is that man cannot be trusted with the ownership of another man due to his fallen nature. Fallen man, another timeless Biblical concept.

But I love the way you assume the worst and jump to the conclusion that somehow I am pro-slavery.

> The way you assert the Bible as a standard without giving one shred of evidence that it in fact is any standard at all is the usual modus operandi.

Everybody brings presuppositions to the table in an argument. Reason and evidence are yours, or at least you claim them, even if your argument occasionally falls short. But your belief in them is a presupposition. You can't use a logical proof to prove logic; you have to assume it is valid and work from there. You can't present evidence that evidence is valid; you have to assume there is an orderly universe from which to draw inferences.

The question would then be, why do you presuppose them? If you don't believe in God, why would you believe in an orderly universe? Why would you believe human thoughts, essentially brain chemistry, could stand over an argument? Please explain how you can start with a complex chemical system such as yourself and arrive at metaphysical truth. If you're going to undermine the only reason I can think of why logic and evidence matter -- namely, they are the product of an almighty God -- then you need to show why they have authority in this discussion. In other words, don't borrow from my world view to support yours.

Singring said...

Defending slavery...you are not the first Christian I have come across who has done so. All I can say is that I find any attempts at rationalizing or excusing the slavery we've seen in the past (no matter what culture) repulsive. But that's just my opinion.

'Reason and evidence are yours, or at least you claim them, even if your argument occasionally falls short.'

Where has my argument fallen short?

Give a concise, point-by point refutation of any of my claims and I will immediately retract it.

I've tried to explain this to Thomas in the other thread, I'll do it for you here:

'You can't use a logical proof to prove logic; you have to assume it is valid and work from there.'

If you had worded your sentence better, I might have agreed 100%. As it stands, I agree with about 80% of it. We cannot prove logic with logic, that is a tautology, correct. But why am I justified in assuming it? I don;t just assume it arbitrarily - I assume it for a good reason, and here's why:

What we can do is look at the model logic provides for our thinking about the physical world and how well it fits the world we see around us. Logic fits the world we see around us rather well in most instances (but not all! Quantum Theory flatly defies logic in many instances) and then say: 'Hey - this model works rather well, so let's use it!'. That's what we do. That's what we've done with mathematics, that's what we've done with logic.

YOU say that there is an absolute foundation for logic and that this is due to the nature of God. There are two fatal flaws in that claim:

1.) You simply define God in a way that excludes him from the premise but makes him the conclusion of the argument. That's called 'begging the question'. In other words: Why is it God's 'nature' to be 'logical'? he might just as well be chaotic, right? Using your argument, I could claim that there is an all-evil, all-chaotic God who created millions of Gods with free will, one of which then created our universe and chose to do make it a logical universe, just because he felt like it on that day. So your argument doesn;t even begin to prove what it hopes to prove.

2.) As I said, quantum theory flatly contradicts several rules of logic. For example, the law of non-contradiction. A can't be A and not A at the same time. Well, in quantum theory, you have particles that are literally -LITERALLY - in two places at the same time. This is something we can measure and can test for. Therefore, logic does not always apply on the quantum scale, which is exactly what you would expect if MY hypothesis of logic as a human made model was correct: We derive the model from the macroscopic, large-scale world we see around us (as the Greeks began thousands of years ago), and it works on that scale, but it fails at the small microscopic scale we didn;t have access to when we fisrt developed logic.

So science disproves that logic is universal. Your argument fails from the very outset.

Maybe as research progresses, we will in fact find that logic applies at this macroscopic scale and we just didn't see it. But that is pure speculation.

The evidence we have at the moment justifies my position of relativism, but not your position of absolutism.

Those are the cold hard facts, Lee - and as much as you might wish that logic were a proof for your fantasy sky-daddy, it just isn;t true (based on the evidence we have right now).

Singring said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Singring said...

IF you want to refute my arguments, you're welcome to. But please give a clear, step-by step explanation fo why you think my two criticism of your argument are flawed or false.

Singring said...

'Please explain how you can start with a complex chemical system such as yourself and arrive at metaphysical truth.'

I have never and will never claim there are any metaphysical truths. I amke no such claim and if you had properly read any of my comments you would have known this. I am a complete relativist - the kind that scare the living daylights out of or Wilsonesque mentality of 'we need God to be logical'!

I suggest you do the following test:

Do a survey of migher mathematicians (mathematics is after all a model of thought analogous to logic) and see how many of them are theists.

That should give you a good idea of how necessary it is to assume God when doing logic reasoning.

Lee said...

> Defending slavery...you are not the first Christian I have come across who has done so...

It doesn't help your argument when you mischaracterize mine.

> Where has my argument fallen short?

E.g., now? Constructing a straw man that I am defending slavery. Earlier, with your use of question-begging epithets, e.g., sneering at my argument based on tradition by labeling it "stone age", as if old means flawed.

> Give a concise, point-by point refutation of any of my claims and I will immediately retract it.

Good. I just did. So please retract your mischaracterization and your reliance on question-begging epithets.

> If you had worded your sentence better, I might have agreed 100%.

What was wrong with my wording?

> As it stands, I agree with about 80% of it. We cannot prove logic with logic, that is a tautology, correct.

Thank you.

> Logic fits the world we see around us rather well in most instances (but not all!

So then, does it follow that logic *mostly* fits the world around us? Therefore, if your logic is flawless, can I still reject your argument because logic does not *always* fit the world around us? I mean, that's logical, right? If not quantum physics, then why not not other things?

And does it also follow from your statement that if an argument fits the world around us, it must therefore be assumed to be true? Surely, logic is not the only explanation of the world around us, is it? We can't construct a plausible narrative with anything else? How about Christianity? If we can explain the world around us in Christian terms, does that mean we should assume Christianity to be true? Apparently not. What about voodoo?

It seems to me that your world view is arbitrary. Logic works and is authoritative, because we assume it to be true, even though we still can't explain what it is, where it came from, or that it applies in every case. The only constant I can find is that logic is good when you like it, and when you don't like it, we're supposed to like what you like. All very arbitrary.

And all this is better than belief in the Bible because...? Help me out here.

> You simply define God in a way that excludes him from the premise but makes him the conclusion of the argument. That's called 'begging the question'.

Well, didn't you just admit that belief in logic is begging the question? Why is it okay for you to beg the question and not me? Again, very arbitrary.

I ask a different question: where did logic come from, and why is it to be considered authoritative? How does that follow in a world without God? So far, no answer, but I'm pretty patient about these things. Answer whenever you're ready.

Lee said...

> In other words: Why is it God's 'nature' to be 'logical'? he might just as well be chaotic, right?

You have tacitly admitted that the universe appears orderly, because you espouse reason and evidence. Is it unreasonable to suppose that orderly works are the sign of an orderly mind? That's my side. What about your side? Without a creator to point at, you have to explain why orderliness results from chaos. In other words, explaining order from chaos is your self-induced chore, not mine.

> Using your argument, I could claim that there is an all-evil, all-chaotic God who created millions of Gods with free will, one of which then created our universe and chose to do make it a logical universe, just because he felt like it on that day. So your argument doesn;t even begin to prove what it hopes to prove.

It all comes back to whether there is one God who created everything. If one God created other gods, then we shouldn't mess around worshiping other gods, they're mere creatures like us.

As far as assuming He's evil is concerned, it doesn't follow. Evil is not the opposite of good; it is a perversion of good. Evil cannot exist by itself; it has a parasitic relationship with goodness. E.g., covetousness (bad) and gluttony (bad) are perversions of desire (good). Jealousy (bad) is a perversion of love (good). So good had to exist before evil. Therefore, God is good and only his creatures have the capacity for evil.

> quantum theory flatly contradicts several rules of logic... [snip]... So science disproves that logic is universal. Your argument fails from the very outset.

So you are logically proving to me that logic is not always valid? Then what good is your argument to me? And you say *my* argument fails?

> The evidence we have at the moment justifies my position of relativism, but not your position of absolutism.

Is your relativism absolutely true, or just relatively true? And if relatively, why should I buy it at all?

In any event, I never said logic is absolute; I said it transcends humanity. God is absolute; logic is one of his inventions, or modes of thought. I wouldn't be surprised if it were merely a part of something much larger. But we human beings have such a hard time with logic, maybe He has decided it's the closest we can come to understanding how His mind works.

But I'm still trying to figure out why you're using the physical world to try to prove metaphysical concepts. If logic is true, it must be a metaphysical concept; if it's merely physical, how can it transcend anything? We might study it as we look at the contents of a test tube, but you wouldn't want to bow to it.

Lee said...

So let's take inventory of all this confusion. You claim I'm wrong because I'm begging the question, and you claim your begging the question is reasonable. You argue that you believe in logic as authoritative because it fits the world around us. Then you argue that it doesn't fit the world around us, and that's why it makes sense. Then you said, since logic doesn't explain the world around us, it disproves my belief in absolute logic, as if I were the one basing my arguments on the authority of a disembodied logic that somehow just is, with no explanation of its origin or authority. Then you argue that the truth or falseness of a metaphysical concept is dependent on physical phenomena (I never did) and then argue that this disproves *my* faith in the absolute Lord but not your faith in the ever-diminishing power of logic.

And the more you talk, the less authority logic seems to hold.

I sure hope I've summarized everything.

> Those are the cold hard facts, Lee

Please, come up with some cold hard facts. At this point I would welcome them.

> and as much as you might wish that logic were a proof for your fantasy sky-daddy, it just isn;t true (based on the evidence we have right now).

Presuppositional apologists argue that all world views other than the Christian world view, when taken to their logical extreme, become absurd. I believe we have witnessed an example of that here, class.

Singring said...

'I just did. So please retract your mischaracterization and your reliance on question-begging epithets.'

Sure...'defense' was a bit string, I agree. Tacit approval of Biblical slavery would be more like it.

As to epithets:

'sneering at my argument based on tradition by labeling it "stone age", as if old means flawed.'

False. I gave a series of reasons why your arguments were flawed, it was not a mere assertion that they are bad because they are old. For someone who claims that 'liberals love to destroy institutions' you should be a bit more careful in accusing others of hurling epithets.

'So then, does it follow that logic *mostly* fits the world around us?'

Yes.

'Surely, logic is not the only explanation of the world around us, is it? '

I never said logic was an 'explanation', I said it was a MODEL we have developed that is based on teh world we observe. Reading my posts will help clear up such misunderstandings.

'Therefore, if your logic is flawless, can I still reject your argument because logic does not *always* fit the world around us?'

That's for yout to decide. However, IF you are goinf to use certain rules of logic yourself that we happen to share then you would be a hypocrite to fault me for using the very same rules you happily apply. So be careful.

'If we can explain the world around us in Christian terms, does that mean we should assume Christianity to be true? '

Christianity is not a conceptual model of thought like logic is. False analogy. But even so, Christianity fails miserably at explaining anything about teh qorld because as I have pointed out, the very definition of your God is question-begging.

'Logic works and is authoritative, because we assume it to be true, even though we still can't explain what it is, where it came from, or that it applies in every case.'

Again, reading my posts will help:
1.) Logic works and is authorative because it accurately reflects the world we observe. In otehr words, it makes useful and correct predictions. THAT'S why I assume it to be true - not arbitrarily as I clearly stated in my earlier post.
2.) I also defined what logic IS: Its a conceptual model of thought analogous to mathematics that works in most instances but not all.
3.) We CAN explain where it came from, exactly like I said in my last post (which apparently you had no interest in actually reading): WE made it up! It's a human construct just like mathematics.
4.) We KNOW that it doesn't apply in every case which completely destroys your argument that it is absolute!

'The only constant I can find is that logic is good when you like it, and when you don't like it, we're supposed to like what you like.'

False. A complete mischaracterization of mine, which is funny, becaus ethat's what youa ccused me of. What I ACTUALLY said was that logic is good when it works and bad when it doesn't work. THAT'S how I choose when to use it.

'And all this is better than belief in the Bible because...? Help me out here.'

Sure - but agai, simply READING MY POST would have answered these questions easily, but I see I have to go over it a second time:

1.) MY view of logic explains why logic fails on the quantum scale, YOURS does not, in fact YOURS is completely contradicted by this fact!

2.) MY view of logic contains no unneccessary assumptions - YOURS does, because it relies on a definition of God (his 'nature' is to be logical) for which you have NO supporting evidence. It is a bald assertion, an exercize in begging the question.

'where did logic come from, and why is it to be considered authoritative? '

How many times?

WE made it up. Because it WORKS in most cases, especially on the scale we tend to use it at.

Get it now or do I need to spell it out a third time?

Singring said...

'Is it unreasonable to suppose that orderly works are the sign of an orderly mind? '

Define 'orderly'. I see nothing much 'orderly' about vast expanses of empty space with occasional clusters of exploding stars, if that's what you mean.

Also, massive, massive non-sequitur: How do you get from 'works' to 'mind' (and what is your definition of those terms)?

'Without a creator to point at, you have to explain why orderliness results from chaos.'

I most certainly don't. First of all, again you need to define a term like 'orderliness' if you expect me to give an accurate response, second of all I don;t have to give ANY account as to how our universe resulted because I am not claiming to know! YOU are the one who is claiming to know, so YOU need to cough up the evidence.

'It all comes back to whether there is one God who created everything. '

Absolutely agree. But in my version, he's all evil and chaotic and what you worship is just one of his pawn creations. Prove I'm wrong...
I'm patient with this kind of stuff. Answer whenever you're ready.

'Evil cannot exist by itself; it has a parasitic relationship with goodness.'

LOL. How do you like my version:

Goodness cannot exist by itself; it has a parasitic relationship with evil.

See how easy that was? If YOU can simply assert that evil is the perversion of goodness, then I can just as easily say that goodness is a perversion of evil. You are begging the question in epic fashion by simply asserting these things.

Let's take this to it's conclusion:

E.g., desire (good) is a perversion of covetousness (bad) and gluttony (bad). Love (good) is a perversion of jealousy (bad). So bad had to exist before good. Therefore, God is evil and only his creatures have the capacity for good.

How do you know that your version is right and mine is wrong?

If you guessed 'BECAUSE THE BIBLE TELLS ME SO!' you get zero points because you are...say it with me now...

begging the question! Just like with your assertion that logic is 'God's nature'. It is pure, unadulterated speculation. You ahve not given one shred of evidence to support that claim!

'So you are logically proving to me that logic is not always valid?'

Exactly. Which flatly contradicts your assertion that logic is absolute. You just ignored that bit, of course.

'Is your relativism absolutely true, or just relatively true? And if relatively, why should I buy it at all?'

Relatively, of course. That's why it's called RELATIVISM.

What you don't seem to understand is that it is YOUR argument that is internally inconsistent.

IF logic is from God and absolute, then what is your explanation that quantum theory proves it wrong (at least at the moment)???

You MUST have an explanation for it, otherwise you must realize that your idea of logic CANNOT be accurate!

In MY view, logic is NOT absolute and therefore I CAN explain why QT contradicts it. Therefore, my view is more consistent with reality.

Is that so hard to follow?

'I wouldn't be surprised if it were merely a part of something much larger. But we human beings have such a hard time with logic, maybe He has decided it's the closest we can come to understanding how His mind works.'

Wow. If those kinds of 'maybe' speculations and attempts at making excuses for the failure for your claim satisfy your intellectual mind, go right ahead. I think they're laughable.

'But I'm still trying to figure out why you're using the physical world to try to prove metaphysical concepts. '

I. Am. Not! I clearly said so in my last post! I do NOT claim there is anything metaphysical about anything! Logic is a model WE made up!

'If logic is true, it must be a metaphysical concept'

Really? Why?

Singring said...

'and you claim your begging the question is reasonable'

No. I'm not begging teh question because I;m not claiming that logic is 'transcendent', 'metaphysical', 'divine', 'absolute' or anything else. I have shown why my view fits the reality we observe better than yours. Show me where I have 'begged the question' in doing so?

'Then you argue that it doesn't fit the world around us, and that's why it makes sense.'

Completely false. I argued it makes sense in most cases because it fits teh world around us in most cases. For someone who takes offense at strawmen, you're buildinga veritable army of them right now.

'as if I were the one basing my arguments on the authority of a disembodied logic that somehow just is, with no explanation of its origin or authority.'

That's exactly what you're doing as long as you're not giving evidence why God should be logical. Just saying 'Cuz he is!' is begging the question and I have shown that you can;t just assume he is, just like you can;t just assume he's all good.

'Then you argue that the truth or falseness of a metaphysical concept is dependent on physical phenomena (I never did) '

Where did I do that?

'then argue that this disproves *my* faith in the absolute Lord but not your faith in the ever-diminishing power of logic.'

I never claimed that. In fact I will state here and now that I cannot disprove your or any other God. If you want to see why, try disproving the existence of invisible unicorns. It's a fun exercize.

What I DID show, however, is that your view of where logic originates is incoherent and internally inconsistent. It does not disprove 'the Lord', but it proves that 'the Lord' cannot be the source of logic.

'Presuppositional apologists argue that all world views other than the Christian world view, when taken to their logical extreme, become absurd. I believe we have witnessed an example of that here, class.'

LOL.

Just LOL. Rarely have I seen someone so ignorant of their own flawed logic. Bravo.

Answer me this one little question Lee, if this is the case:

How do you explain particles being in two places at the same time when logic tells us this CANNOT happen?

Lee said...

> Tacit approval of Biblical slavery would be more like it.

Where did I tacitly approve of Biblical accounts of slavery? I acknowledge that slavery existed in Biblical times and that the Bible records this. How does acknowledgment of slavery mean approval? Did I not write the following?

> "In fact, probably the single biggest reason why slavery is a bad thing is that man cannot be trusted with the ownership of another man due to his fallen nature. Fallen man, another timeless Biblical concept."

I said it, I'll say it again: slavery is a bad thing. How did you conclude I said slavery is a good thing? Or even tacitly approved of it?

> False. I gave a series of reasons why your arguments were flawed, it was not a mere assertion that they are bad because they are old.

If so, then what did use of the epithet "stone-age" accomplish?

What you did, in fact, was name some institutions that I acknowledged needed to be pulled down. It does not follow that all old institutions need to be pulled down, nor (in my argument) did it follow from my argument that institutions ought to survive because they're old. I said that we should presume in favor of existing institutions unless we can really demonstrate some timeless principle that argues for pulling it down. And that I could find no such timeless principle in the Bible, nor in the great documents of Western civilization. But you didn't contradict my examples. Apparently, you thought it sufficient to gasp in amazement that there were old institutions that needed to come down, so why not this one?

> IF you are goinf to use certain rules of logic yourself that we happen to share then you would be a hypocrite to fault me for using the very same rules you happily apply. So be careful.

Obviously, the same back at you. But just so my position is clear: I claim the Bible as my ultimate authority, not logic. It is sufficient for me to show that your faith in logic is absurd based on your own presuppositions.

> Christianity is not a conceptual model of thought like logic is. False analogy.

Why does something have to be a conceptual model of thought to explain the world around us?

> But even so, Christianity fails miserably at explaining anything about teh qorld because as I have pointed out, the very definition of your God is question-begging.

But you can beg the question about logic, and it's okay.

> Logic works and is authorative because it accurately reflects the world we observe.

But didn't you show that it doesn't accurately reflect the world we observe, when you observed it doesn't explain quantum mechanics?

> In otehr words, it makes useful and correct predictions

Except when it doesn't.

Lee said...

> THAT'S why I assume it to be true - not arbitrarily as I clearly stated in my earlier post.

Your reasoning is arbitrary because it's wrong for me to beg the question, but right for you. It is arbitrary because you insist logic deserves our faith because explains the physical world, and then also because it doesn't explain the physical world.

> I also defined what logic IS: Its a conceptual model of thought analogous to mathematics that works in most instances but not all.

If it does not work in all instances, why should I be convinced it works when you claim its authority? And why should I assume that mathematics is any more valid than logic? It is based on logic, after all. How does math tell us anything about the universe if it is logical and the universe isn't? And if the universe is not chaotic, how did that happy result come about from a chaotic origin, without a Creator?

> We CAN explain where it came from, exactly like I said in my last post (which apparently you had no interest in actually reading): WE made it up!

Why should we invest authority in anything we made up? We made up Harry Potter, too. If I want to learn about flying, should I forget taking courses in aeronautical engineering and consult Harry and his broom?

> It's a human construct just like mathematics.

And that makes it somehow authoritative? Do humans ever make mistakes?

> We KNOW that it doesn't apply in every case which completely destroys your argument that it is absolute!

I didn't say logic is absolute. I said it was created by Someone who is absolute. Do you not see a difference?

> What I ACTUALLY said was that logic is good when it works and bad when it doesn't work.

If it doesn't always work, why do you insist on receiving a logical argument? (You certainly don't insist on providing one.) Why is it somehow authoritative in our discussion?

> MY view of logic explains why logic fails on the quantum scale, YOURS does not, in fact YOURS is completely contradicted by this fact!

You'll have to show your work on this one. I admit, you have me utterly baffled.

> MY view of logic contains no unneccessary assumptions - YOURS does

Your logic does not contain the one necessary assumption: that something or someone above man created it.

> because it relies on a definition of God (his 'nature' is to be logical) for which you have NO supporting evidence.

The evidence for God is the absurdity of assuming He doesn't exist, and then trying to employ thought processes that wouldn't exist and would make no sense if He hadn't made them.

> It is a bald assertion

I grant that it is a bold assertion.

> an exercize in begging the question.

Which again, is bad when I do it and good when you do it.

>> 'where did logic come from, and why is it to be considered authoritative? '

> How many times?

Once would work.

> WE made it up. Because it WORKS in most cases, especially on the scale we tend to use it at.

"We made it up" may explain why (in a godless world) it exists. It does not explain why it holds authority. Especially when you concede that it doesn't always work.

> Get it now or do I need to spell it out a third time?

I think someone needs to take a deep breath.

Lee said...

> I have never and will never claim there are any metaphysical truths. I amke no such claim and if you had properly read any of my comments you would have known this.

Perhaps your objection is true. But if it is, I hardly see how it helps your argument. I was, in fact, assuming 'best case' for your position. Without metaphysical truth, there is no truth at all. So why are you arguing with me? There are just your brain chemicals vs. my brain chemicals, your preferences vs. mine. We are no more having a debate than the wind is having a debate with the leaves in the trees.

> I am a complete relativist - the kind that scare the living daylights out of or Wilsonesque mentality of 'we need God to be logical'!

Oh brother. Sorry, absurd arguments aren't very scary. How can relativism be true? Even if you're right, you're only relatively right, and all I have to do is wait around until you're relatively wrong.

I'm always amazed at the things people will choose to believe in rather than bow their knee to God. Trust me on this, you are making atheism look like a very difficult and quite implausible creed.

And I've also noticed that people who claim to be relativists don't stop arguing, even though it's meaningless by their own standards. Nobody lives his life as if he's really a relativist. That's why you're still arguing, I suppose. All hail the truth of non-truth. All hail the valid non-validity of logic, except when it doesn't apply, and in fact even at its best only reflects relative truth... but shame on the Christians for not accepting it anyway. There's no evidence for Christianity, not that evidence is an absolute either, but darn them for not recognizing the superior relative truth of the atheist to the inferior relative falsehood of the Christian. Wait, isn't a relative truth sometimes false? Isn't a relative falsehood sometimes true? It's so confusing. Anyhow, fie on them!

Fine, you believe in relative truth. Is there even a relative requirement that your world view be coherent?

> Do a survey of migher mathematicians (mathematics is after all a model of thought analogous to logic) and see how many of them are theists.

So we determine truth -- I mean, relative truth, of course -- by taking a poll? No wonder it's relative.

> That should give you a good idea of how necessary it is to assume God when doing logic reasoning.

Seriously, when did I say someone had to assume God to perform logic? I said God was a precondition to logic. Do you not see the difference? Logic is there. God made it, so of course even the atheists can see it and use it. Can someone make a speech denying there is air? Of course he can. But can someone do so without using air? Air is a precondition for speaking, even when the spoken word denies its existence.

Lee said...

Martin, sorry to hijack your thread.

Singring said...

Lee, you sime to be quite the prolific writer. Your latest posts are so ripe with falsehoods, misrepresentation ans starwmen, I would ove to adress them all but I have work todo. However, we can cut this really, really short because there are two very nice littele tidbits i spotted in your posts that pefectly illustrates why your position is the invalid one.

Here we go:

'I didn't say logic is absolute. I said it was created by Someone who is absolute.'

OK. Logic is not absolute! Thanks for that admission. So you agree with me that it is RELATIVE. So all of your moaning and complaining about my logic lacking authority os YOUR problem as well. I guess we're in the same boat then.

But this is where the problem arises for you:

In my view of logic (we created it) I can explain quite easily why it is not absolute.

In YOUR view of logic, an absolute God had to create logic in a way that is not absolute. In other words, a God who's nature it is to obey absolute laws of logic, created a universe of relative logic. (By the way, among all your misrepresentation of my position you didn;t seem to find the time to support your claims about God's goodness and 'nature'. Strange.)

That is, of course, a logical contradiction. Therefore, God cannot exist.

Here's your way out of this dilemma:

1.) Either God is not absolutely logical (which means he is not absolute in one of his aspects).

2.) Logic IS absolute (but then we know it isn't so therefore God does not exist).

So ican;t see how you get out of this one, except by proposing option 1.). God is a relative, not always logical something.

But that doesn;t even adress the question of how you would know that. A whole other can of worms you have been skirting all this time.

'Your logic does not contain the one necessary assumption: that something or someone above man created it.'

IF logic is relative as you have conceded - then why is 'someone creating it' a necessary assumption?

These two points are all I need right now to show your position is untenable.

Thank you.

Lee said...

>> 'I didn't say logic is absolute. I said it was created by Someone who is absolute.'

> OK. Logic is not absolute! Thanks for that admission. So you agree with me that it is RELATIVE.

For someone who complains that I misrepresent his position, you seem to misrepresent my position quite a bit. I said 'I didn't say logic is absolute.' How did you construe from that that I said logic is not absolute?

I thought I had made my position clear in an earlier post, when I wrote the following:

> "In any event, I never said logic is absolute; I said it transcends humanity. God is absolute; logic is one of his inventions, or modes of thought. I wouldn't be surprised if it were merely a part of something much larger. But we human beings have such a hard time with logic, maybe He has decided it's the closest we can come to understanding how His mind works."

So your critique of absolute logic leaves my world view unscathed, but leaves yours a scorched plain. You have repeatedly stated you refuse to budge unless someone can rationally, and with evidence, explain why God exists. So logic is your authority, higher than us, higher even than God, if He were to exist. But as an authority, it seems to lack, well, any element of authority. It's fallible. It is not universally applicable. So I suppose it is no wonder you are a relativist, even though relativists should give up on the enterprise of telling anyone else he is wrong.

And since I did not propose that logic must be absolute, that proposition cannot be developed to prove my position to be absurd.

Singring said...

'I said 'I didn't say logic is absolute.' How did you construe from that that I said logic is not absolute?'

LOL.

Christian logic on full display. For someone who pontificates about logic so much you seem to know very little about its actual rules.

Is logic absolute - or is ot NOT?

There's two options here - just those two. It's another law of logic which is called the 'law of the excluded middle'. Maybe you should look up Martin's books on logic to get some info on that.

But hey - you could argue that the law of the excluded middle doesn't apply here. You know what that means, though: You think that logic is relative.

Logic cannot be absolute because it fails at the quantum scale and it cannot be relative if it is the product of an absolutely logical God. So the only way out you are left with is a relative, maybe even chaotic God.

You see, Lee, you've painted yourself into a nice little corner here. There's no way out.

Your view fails.

'you refuse to budge unless someone can rationally, and with evidence, explain why God exists.'

Whoa. We haven't even begun to discuss that issue - we have been discussing the origin of logic. All I'm asking for is a coherent explanation for how logic originates. This has nothing to do with with whether or not God exists. Like I said - a relitively logical God could exist.

All I'm showing here, with your gracious help, is that your view of the oriin of logic is internally inconsistent - in other words, it's false.

'So logic is your authority, higher than us, higher even than God, if He were to exist.'

Not at all - but since we are both using logic here, we should both submit to its rules as long as they pply. As I have shown above, you don't even seem to know the rules, let alone how ro apply them.

All I'm asking for is that you give me a coherent view on the origin of logic. What you have given me so far is internally contradictory as I am getting tired of having to point out.

Lee said...

As usual, you misread what I said. Singring, you are the king of straw men.

> Is logic absolute - or is ot NOT?

I did not say logic is absolute. I did not say logic is relative. I posed nothing about logic other than, whatever it is, it was created by the Lord and serves as an authority for human thinking. But I never said it was *the* authority. Then I argued why it is absurd to assume a disembodied logic, free from a Creator and a mere product of brain chemicals, can exist and transcend our arguments as somehow authoritative.

1 Corinthians 2:11 "For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God."

Romans 11:34 "For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?"

John 14:6 Jesus said, "I am the way and the truth and the Life"

The Lord is absolute. Truth is absolute. Logic appears to be part of it, as best as we can understand. But truth exists because He exists. The question is who gets put in a box, God or logic? Does God conform to the laws of His invention? Or does the invention conform to the will of God? This might explain why logic explains some things and not others. God is the God of logic and perhaps the God of chaos as well, for even the chaos does his bidding.

Once again, you are the one who holds logic to be authoritative, so if the power of logic is impeached, if hurts your position more than mine.

> There's two options here - just those two. It's another law of logic which is called the 'law of the excluded middle'. Maybe you should look up Martin's books on logic to get some info on that.

You already embraced the excluded middle when you argued that truth is not absolute. If truth is not absolute, then neither can be the law of the excluded middle be absolute truth. So I cannot be wrong by your standards.

> So the only way out you are left with is a relative, maybe even chaotic God.

And that might be true if God were bound by logic, instead of vice versa.

> All I'm asking for is a coherent explanation for how logic originates. This has nothing to do with with whether or not God exists. Like I said - a relitively logical God could exist.

When did I say logic is absolute? My argument is that it cannot hold any authority over us unless it stands over us, and it cannot stand over us unless it was created by God. You have taken it from there on your own and driven it to the conclusions that I said logic is absolute.

So you've gone to a lot of time and effort to disprove something I didn't say. But of course you don't need much encouragement to break into a victory dance; disproving something I didn't say will do just fine.

> All I'm asking for is that you give me a coherent view on the origin of logic.

I have. It is an invention of God's. This explains why it has *any* authority. That's "any", not "all."

You are the one who owes an explanation about why it holds *any* authority over man, and stands over our argument, if it is a mere invention of man's.

One Brow said...

With all the fun you are having with Singring, a few of my comments/questions seem to have passed by, unnoticed.

So, I'll ask the question, does anyone here disagree with these two principles:

1. That natural things (not artificial things) have an intrinsic purpose (or purposes);


I honestly have no idea. My belief is that they do not, but that is based on belief alone, and I can't justify that statement. So, I am willing to discuss natural purposes as if they might exist. What I can say about them is, when people assign purposes to natural things, and there are differnet selections that seem reasonable, they seem to select based on arbitrary criteria.

So, if the heart has a purpose, the only purpose I see for it is pumping blood. I agree with that idea, subject to the caveat that my limited imagination is also in play. However, for sexual relations, I see two purposes, both of which are present in our species, each of which is absent in some species while the other is present. Thus, my question about how you can choose to base a law on one purpose and not the other.

Note that the choice of the purposes changes what you feel the law should say. If the purpose of sex is reproduction, that it is possible (although not certain) for a restictive law abut marriage to make sense. On the other hand, if the purpose of sex is create and improve social relationships, then a more permissive law would be indicated.

2. That the purpose of a part of any whole is subservient (and answerable) to the purpose of the whole of which it is a part.

This is not true even for things I design, where often I intend parts to serve purposes that do not enhance the purpose of the whole, but rather enhance something disconnected. I don't see why it would have to be true of whatever natural purposes might exist.

NOw, martin,. perhaps you will at last choose to answer how you can scientifically choose between the different purposes of sex?

Singring said...

'I did not say logic is absolute. I did not say logic is relative. I posed nothing about logic other than, whatever it is, it was created by the Lord and serves as an authority for human thinking.'

Simply incredible. You go on and on, post after post about how I am the one who has no right to tell anyone about logic because I have nothing to base it on and here you come out and say that not only do you not KNOW if logic is applicable in any given situation, you go so far to say that you don't even have a position on WHAT IT IS.

And YOU fault ME for being too relative when your position is so relative that its not even a position?

In-friggin-credible.

'Then I argued why it is absurd to assume a disembodied logic, free from a Creator and a mere product of brain chemicals, can exist and transcend our arguments as somehow authoritative.'

Please define 'athoritative'. What do you mean when you say logic has to be 'authoritative'. Does it have to apply all the time? Sometimes? Whenever you like it? When God tells you so? Authority implies that we must know when or when not to obey. So - when do we obey the laws of logic? Always?

'1 Corinthians 2:11'

Quoting scripture is like quiting a fortune cookie. Completely pointless.

'The Lord is absolute. Truth is absolute.'

So the Lord is ABSOLUTE. Then he CANNOT be the source of logic, because logic is RELATIVE, as you have already conceded. There is no middle ground! Either God IS absolute or he ISN'T. Those are the two options. What you are trying to argue at the moment is that God is absolute redness and that he created blue. It's completely contradictory nonsense.

'Does God conform to the laws of His invention? Or does the invention conform to the will of God?'

Good question! So which is it, Lee?

Did God create logic or is he it's slave? Either way, you lose.

'You already embraced the excluded middle when you argued that truth is not absolute. If truth is not absolute, then neither can be the law of the excluded middle be absolute truth. So I cannot be wrong by your standards.'

Boy oh boy - I clearly stated that the law of the excluded middle goves us two options: Either logic is absolute or it is relative. I have picked a position. You have not. It appears I am adhering to the laws of logic more frequently than you are, which of course is very ironic.

'My argument is that it cannot hold any authority over us unless it stands over us, and it cannot stand over us unless it was created by God. You have taken it from there on your own and driven it to the conclusions that I said logic is absolute.'

What do you mean with this gibberish? How does logic 'stand over us', when and how does it have 'authority'? When you say it has 'authority', does that mean we have to obey logic ALWAYS?

'I have. It is an invention of God's. This explains why it has *any* authority. That's "any", not "all."'

So only things created by God have athority? What about God himself, does he have authority?

'You are the one who owes an explanation about why it holds *any* authority over man, and stands over our argument, if it is a mere invention of man's.'

Do you believe in the usefulness of medicine? That was invented by man. Computers? Invented by man. Agriculture? Invented by man.

If you really are someone who believes that nothing created by man has any 'athority', you'be be living in a cave.

Lee said...

> And YOU fault ME for being too relative when your position is so relative that its not even a position?

I have already said what I consider to be absolute.

> Please define 'athoritative'. What do you mean when you say logic has to be 'authoritative'.

I mean exactly what you mean when you say that you will accept my position if provided sufficient reason and evidence. You are accepting reason and evidence as authoritative. They stand over us in this discussion and determine which one of us is wrong and the other one right (or at least less wrong). You claim it is logic and evidence. I claim that logic and evidence cannot exist in an authoritative capacity unless something greater than us created it. If God didn't make it, it does not transcend us. If it does not transcend us, our argument is nothing but wind and noise (though there has been plenty of that nevertheless).

And nobody lives his life as if nothing transcends us. If you did, you wouldn't bother arguing with anyone. If absolute truth doesn't exist, it doesn't exist in your argument, either.

Lee said...

> Does it have to apply all the time? Sometimes? Whenever you like it? When God tells you so?

Pretty much, I probably use it much like you do. Except I don't bet the whole farm on it.

> Authority implies that we must know when or when not to obey. So - when do we obey the laws of logic? Always?

Well, for example, if you're a Calvinist, you begin with the presupposition that the Bible is inerrant. Then, from the Bible, you learn that man is totally depraved and unable to come to the Lord without the Lord waking him up to his own sin. You also learn that man is held responsible for his sin, even if he is not one of the ones whom the Lord awakened. That's a much tougher logical conundrum than any you have presented.

All I can say is pretty much that logic appears to play a part in all this. But the Lord Himself seems to employ it or not, as He chooses. Perhaps this was the reason God revealed Himself to the Israelites and not the Greeks: He did not want logic to be the arbiter of last resort.

> Quoting scripture is like quiting a fortune cookie. Completely pointless.

I can guarantee you that, in three thousand years, no one will be reading the Book of Singring, or for that matter the Book of Lee. But the Bible will still be here. It's only pointless to quote it if you have presupposed that it is pointless.

Which brings me to the one new point that I wish to make: we all start with presuppositions. I don't believe you have simply thought your way to atheism. I think you started with atheism, and have ordered your thoughts around it, not the other way around. It's why you grasp for something, anything, that gives the impression of permanence and truth to bolster your positions.

I too have presuppositions. The Bible is God's inerrant word. God is eternal, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He is truth, light, and goodness. I start there, and order my thoughts around that. Because, frankly, as C.S. Lewis said, it takes too much faith not to believe in God.

> So the Lord is ABSOLUTE. Then he CANNOT be the source of logic, because logic is RELATIVE, as you have already conceded.

Sorry, it doesn't follow that an Absolute God cannot create a relative construct. He made humans and humans aren't absolute, after all. He made beauty, but beauty certainly appears to be in the eye of the beholder -- some people love "Rite of Spring", others can't stand it.

> There is no middle ground! Either God IS absolute or he ISN'T.

Are you conflating God with logic? The Creator with His creation?

> Do you believe in the usefulness of medicine? That was invented by man. Computers? Invented by man. Agriculture? Invented by man.

Medicine, computers, agriculture have value only if man has value. In my world view, man has value. He can only have value if an eternal God imbued him with value. In your world view, man is but a collection of atoms and energy, here by accident, gone tomorrow.

And no, our inventions have no authority over us, and we shouldn't give them any. They are to serve our purposes, not we theirs. When we do allow our creations to take control of us (e.g., booze, drugs, porn) the results are usually not very good.

Singring said...

'I mean exactly what you mean when you say that you will accept my position if provided sufficient reason and evidence.'

Excellent!

Strangely, though, for the entire remainder of your posts, you make one huge argument that goes like this:

'If God didn't make logic, it doesn't transcend us and isn't authoritative!'

Does that prove God created logic? Of course not - it just means that you WISH God created logic so it was authoritative. There is no reason at all to suppose God created logic, all you are doing is making wishful thinking claims.

I know you are because you also said this:

'Pretty much, I probably use it much like you do. '

You didn;t answer directly how you think we should decide when and when not to use logic - but you did admit that you use it 'pretty much the same way I do'. I can decide when and how to use logic without God. Therefore, in my view it is not necessary at all for logic to be somehow 'transcendent' to be authoritative. If you use logic 'pretty much the same way', then neither do YOU need God to claim logic's athoritativeness from case to case.

So then how can you claim you know God created logic, when just like me you can decide for yourself when it is authoritative and when it is not, based on the real world, on real life and not on some 'transcendent' principle???

'He made humans and humans aren't absolute, after all.'

False analogy. Or are we transcendent?

'He can only have value if an eternal God imbued him with value. In your world view, man is but a collection of atoms and energy, here by accident, gone tomorrow.'

Lee - all arguments and disagreement aside.

Do you really think this? Do you really think that if there is no God, human life is without value? Pointless? Worthless?

If that really is so, then let's end this right here.

Keep your religion, keep your 'Lord'. If that belief is the only thing that makes you think humn life has value, I hope you keep it.
I don;t want to think what you would do if you lost it, if your view of human life without God is so low, so pitiless.

I have a family, I have loved ones, I care deeply about the world just like you. I wish gay people could marry each other because it hurts nobody else and it makes them happy.

But I guess I'm the one who thinks human life is without value and pointless...

Joe_Agnost said...

Lee wrote: "...nobody lives his life as if nothing transcends us. If you did, you wouldn't bother arguing with anyone."

Huh??!! What on earth are you talking about? How does having an opinion have anything to do with transcedentals?

And: "...as C.S. Lewis said, it takes too much faith not to believe in God."

Sigh... what a lost cause. I'd love to ask CS which "god" he's talking about... is it any old god? Would Thor do? How about Vishnu?

And: "...man has value. He can only have value if an eternal God imbued him with value."

This just isn't true. Not even close. It's such a sad view you hold of your fellow humans...

And: "In your world view, man is but a collection of atoms and energy, here by accident, gone tomorrow."

Yup - and how do you infer from that that we don't have "value"? Like Singring wrote in his last comment - there is lots to value in life and god is not a requirement in the least!

The really sad part is that I think Lee really believes this. I've met many a theist who does and it never ceases to amaze me! It's bizarre beyond belief - this low opinion you have for your fellow man (that the ~fact~ that we evolved from other lifeforms without a god means we have no value).

It brings to mind this idea: You really need to maintain your belief in god - without it it seems you'd have nothing to stop you from indulging in your wildest evil thoughts... it's the atheist that is good for goodness sake - and not some threat from god.